Debate! Roman Catholic Trad Meltdown on Stream + Evangelical Debate - Uncreated Energies & Tradition

Is connected from the liturgical celebration of the community. So for us, it doesn't make any sense to have eucharistic adoration divorced from the actual full on liturgical service. And that's why there's so many things that what trad cats think is, you know, quote trad cat Catholicism is actually just a Latin medieval or

a post Tridentine development. The ancient Church didn't do that because they didn't separate communion or the reverencing of the gifts from the entire liturgical celebration, which includes the entire community. Yeah, all right, well thanks for you all. I mean, are you are you aware that like that didn't occur in the first thousand years? Oh yeah, no, obviously is a development within the

church. But see us Roman Catholics, we would see that as completely valid as a part of this beautiful process that the God has burned into place. How is theology a process when we're told in the Canons of the ancient Councils that theology is not a process that doesn't evolve, It doesn't evolve, But we discover, like we you know, the trinity, for instance, wasn't formally defined instantly, right, So you think the Trinity is a discovery. Yeah, we Yeah, so it wasn't. So it wasn't taught in the

Old Testament. It wasn't defined. Nobody did define it in that way. So so something is not the case until it's discovered and defined. Well, we're not aware of it until that happens. Right, How did then, how did how did the New Testament writers argue the Trinity from the Old Testament? Well, so they didn't. That's the thing I mean. You're saying that the New Testament writers didn't argue the deity of the of Christ and the

duty to Holy Spirit from the Old Testament. They argued the elements of it, but they didn't actually argue the full How can you arget take definition of it? How can you argue the elements? You understand that the dogmatic definitions are just explicating what's there. Sure that they help us understand it more fully? Right, And the point is we didn't actually understand No, wait a

minute, that's you said discovery. That's different than understanding it fully. Well, you're discovering more about it, right, So again, the New Testament writers argue the Trinity from the Old Testament. How does Justin Martyr argue against Tripho. Well, I mean, I'm not as well read as you on that side, but well, hold on, so this is this is pretty well. Hold on, this is pretty important for the history of Trinitarian theology.

I would think you would know that since you're arguing for the development of doctrine. What's the question, what's the course of argument? What's the course of argument that Justin Martyr takes with Trifo? Did you Well, this is an argument of this is commonality between us. It we believe believe that you know, these things actually were revealed to us, you know, for a process. Yeah, but see, your church teaches that the Old Testament taught

a Unitarian deity and that the New Testament revelation is of the Trinity. I don't believe that, and I'm showing you that the New Testament writers don't believe that, because how does Jesus argue for the relationship of the Father and the Son in the book of John. Well, that's the thing, is new Ones. There's so much his context depend on. It really depends on how does he argue in John five? Well, I would need to get my Bible if you want to talk about it. I mean, I got mine

outlets. Do you want to see what he shows? Don't repeat my name. Don't repeat my name. So right, so I'm asking and you're giggling. I'm asking you basic Trinitarian questions. No, we don't, we don't. I just told you fundamental disagreements. The Old Testament doctrine of the Trinity is why we believe in the Trinity. That's why Jesus refers to the relationship of Moses on the mountain in Exodus, and he says, I'm the one

talking to Moses on the mountain in John five, to the Pharisees. Okay, in John sixteen seventeen, he talks at fifteen sixteen seventeen, he talks about the Holy Spirit. That Holy Spirit is all throughout the Old Testament as a distinct person. And that's why, for example, many of today's rabbis admit multiplicity in God in the Old Testament. The New Testament writers constantly refer to the Old Testament to prove the trinity. The word trinity has nothing to

do with whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is taught. And that's why the Trinity is in the Old Testament. Because Abraham believed in Father, he believed in Angel of the Lord Logos, and he believed in the Holy Spirit. That's what the icon of the three Visitors to Abraham means. So if you understood Trinitarian theology, you would know that that's basic in Orthodox theology. Roman Catholic theology does not have that as basic because Roman cathogy theology doesn't

not have the Trinitarian doctrine. That is correct, it has a heterodox development of doctrine. And you, guys, prove the development of doctrine like Trent didn't the debate with Trent by saying that the Old Testament teaches a Unitarian deity and the New Testament teaches the Trinity. That is categorically false. So when Justin Martyr debates Tripo the Jew, he argues the Trinity from the Old Testament. That's before the codification of the doctrine of the Trinity. So you understand

that theology is taught before the words are used. But Roman Catholicism confuses explication of doctrine with development of doctrine. And that's how you got to all the innovations of what you're talking about of eucharistic adoration and a thousand other things in papalism that has nothing to do with biblical theology, nothing to do with patristic

theology, and violates all the canons of the first seven ecumenical councils. WHOA, okay, beautiful you you know, taking parts in the Old Testament and then using that support the daughtrine of a trinity. Hold on, you understand, Jesus and the Church fathers do that? You said, I'm doing it. Jesus and the Church Fathers do well, you repeat to it. But that's beautiful, I tell you. Do they not do that? But do they not do that? Why are you repeating my name? Do they not

do that? Yeah? They do? But yeah, you said something quite interesting. You actually said the Orthodox and Roman Catholics we actually have different definitions of a trinity. Absolutely, that's quite an extreme position. No, it's it's one factual. I'll say it, because there are medieval councils excommunicating one another over the trinity. So in what way does does our definition of a trinity differ from yours? Well, I just gave you an example that the

Old Testament doesn't teach a unitarian deity. I agree, So natural theology is not true because natural theology usually predicates that the Old Testament teaches a Unitarian deity and the Trinity is a New Testament revelation if you read into it, I mean read into it again. So is that not Vatican Two's doctrine or natural theology or is it? I think it's uh? You know this is why no, strich, No, your your church teaches that Muslims and Christians believe

in the same God because they're monotheistic. Do you agree with that? No, again, that's that's not what it says. Yes, it does. It's an interpretation. No, hold on, So wait a minute, it's an interpretation. I thought Vatican two and the Documents of Dogma are are the interpretation. So you're saying that that's an interpretation of an interpretation. Jay, why do you keep repeating my name? Can you address the argument instead of look j J J J Look Jay, Let Jay, because it's a deflection

and it's a stupid tactic. That's like NLP. Why are you giggling? It does crazy? Yeah, okay, enough of that fumbles, right, So the you see what happens is that they do the exact same thing. They always do. This rather than address specific points, they do this condescending giggle, especially the Brits and the Australians. They're all they all do this exact same thing, Ja from Brian's bass. The problem. Look, can you not have a conversation that sticks to the points and addresses them. You

don't have to say my name fifty times? Look, Jay, look, look, look look, Ji, look, look, look, look, look, look, look look, come on, and that condescending giggle. Dude, get out of here with that, and the Roman calics are was like, do you so mean? He do me? But I have to listen to a condescending giggle infinitely repeating my name and not addressing any point that was raised. Fumbles, Oh yo, j did you hear Ted Kazinski died? No, he died, money died in prison. Interesting, So anything

to do with what we're talking about today. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but it's open. It's open for him debate on Rome Catholicism, Protestantism, atheism not Ted Kazinski day, Yeah, yeah, well with Roman Catholicism. I have a gave me a question about the what's have you

ever addressed the Pope Agatha question? I feel like you have, but if you have anything to say about it, I'd like to maybe mentioned it because I saw some Roman Catholics say something that Pope Agatha appropaently proves something to do with the pH I mean, we've addressed that probably five hundred times. So you can go to um the Denny book on ta Papalism. The chapter on Pope Agatho is great because number one, it shows that it's not papalism for

two key reasons. First of all, the council itself excommunicates the prior pope, so that shows that the papacy is not the rock, and it is defectable because the council and three subsequent councils also that continue to repeat the anathema of Honorius clearly didn't interpret the statement of his letter to be infallible. So just because the pope claims something in a letter, it doesn't mean that therefore

the entire church accepts that. Furthermore, Pope Martin had already condemned monothelotism. If this was a papal situation, there would not have been a council. They would have just looked to the prior condemnation of monothelatism by Pope Martin. They would not have spent time investigating the Letter of Agatho to see if it was Orthodox, just like they investigated the Letter of Leo to see if it matched up with Saint Cyril. So when you read, when you understand that

context, then the papalist argument is absolutely nothing. M Yeah, okay, well so but I'll get you someone else now right, Well, nice again, hope in a while. Yeah, man, thank you, good question, good question, stagging? Oh hi Jay, Sorry, Um, I just turned on the spaces, like right when you said you're gonna start uh

speakers, and so I'm not sure exactly what the debate is about. Buys had it, So it's open for him debate or Q and A. It doesn't have to be debate the topics of Roman Catholicism, protestantsm Atheism, Islam, Pagan's, uh, philosophy, Biblical theology, geopolitics. Okay, I just had a question about the masoretic Uh, the Bible's like, aren't they the word God? Wasn't it based off of Yahweh or Elohim or l which

are words that they don't know what it means exactly. They're they're just terms like the word divinity, right, so that it's like saying divinity can be a generic descriptor or of a god, of a demon, or of the true God. So it's no different than the word divinity. So people make dumb word concept. I'm not talking about you, but people just make word concept fallacy mistakes of thinking that the word divinity is a proper noun. It's not. Okay, that's interesting, just like the word God is not a

proper noun because it can be used for gods. It can be used for God, it can be used for the divine nature, could be used for the divine persons, could be used for divine energies. The word God can pick out different things. It doesn't pick out one single thing. And probably eighty percent of people's not you, but dumb theological mistakes and errors are about things like this. For example, Muslims think that the word God can only pick out Allah in his unity and his simplicity, as if the word God

can't pick out multiple things. Okay, And like the words the Holy Spirit like spirit, it was from the Hebrew Hebrew word ruak, meaning like they don't know. They have two meanings on what they think that word originally meant but it is like either well again, so spirit could spirit could pick out a human spirit, an angelic spirit, or it could pick out the divine

spirit their generic terms that can pick out different things. What do you think about these new ancient technology like I guess they call him conspiracy theories, but like the that there was ancient society with like good good, like better technology than we have now ten thousand years ago before the cataclysmic event. Yeah, I suppose that's possible. I mean, if the Book of Enich is telling us, you know, some kind of story like that, then and that's

that's possible. But it's very speculative. So good questions. Let's move on. Varangian m all right, try to try to come back in. I can't hear. You're not making any sounds. Mean badger, what's up, dude, I'm mute. M I'm mute. Guys, when you come on, you're muted. You gotta umute yourself. He's so mean. Imagine saying

the same thing five hundred times and you think I'm mean. I used to wonder why radio show hosts and TV like, why they would kind of get like seemingly fussy, you know when you see the bill O'Reilly clip or when

you see the clips of Laura Ingram and she's being kind of rude. It's because when you work or do things in media, there is this never ending thing that you always have to do that gets really annoying because you want to move on and do things, and so when you have to tell people to unmute, like every time, it gets really annoying for you to have to do it. Does that make sense? And then everybody's just like lukell, impatient to use. Look, we're more virtuous than him. We've won.

He's not virtuous. We are great, we have defeated him. So look, dude, un mute. How hard is Everybody spends all day on their fricking phones and people can't figure how long has twitter happened? Twitter has been a thing for a long time. Spaces have been a thing for a long time. All you gotta do is I'm mute. It's not hard. By the way, I'm having fun ranting about it before the people will clip this and be like, we've caught him. We've caught him. He's not virtuous.

We knew it all along. It's a glorious day for us soy mails we've won. That's how a soy maal exults in his soyness. By the way, that's how they act. Jonathan, what's up, dude to me means to me, yes, sir, So, I've been doing some research and all this theological stuff, and you know, a lot of different camps have some good arguments, and I was curious what your path was to figure out how you ended up being a Porthodox rather than stopp any one of the

other camps. Well, I mean that's kind of an involved question. I don't mind answering it. By the way, guys in the chat, if you would hit like and share over on YouTube, we got a nice four hundred crowd over there. Let's get let's get those numbers shops. Get those numbers shop and if you want to support the show, you can buy the super chat function, which is through stream Labs. What are your channel monitorsed? Because I got de moonitized a long time ago, So super chats are

by stream Labs. That's the stream Labs link right there. So I mean there's a lot of I mean, I had a kind of a long journey

to Orthodoxy through being raised Protestant and then Calvinists. I got into Calvinism and Bible College, a did Bonsan seminary, and then I got into Roman Catholicism Tray Catholicism throughout my twenties eight, nine, ten years ish, and then I got into Orthodoxy, but I wasn't ready in two thousand and seven or eight, so it took me about ten years to come around the Orthodoxy.

And I'd spent a long time going through kind of agnostic phase, not agnostic like there's no God, but like agnostic to the different traditions of you know, Christianity so called. But I think ultimately for me it was seeing them the problem positions in Protestantism, the contradictions between pre impost Vatican to Roman Catholicism,

which has only been accentuated in the last twenty years or so. Um spending time in both of those worlds, as well as continuing to get deeper into the Eastern Church fathers, the history of the Church, the various councils, and what the Roman caw that cannons and councils were saying versus the cannons of the first thousand years of the Church. Those are kind of the big

deciding factors for me as well as biblical theology. Okay, that makes sense because you know, I don't want to just make a decision based off of like how I feel exactly. No, sure, you can't base it on that likely you know, emotionally involved things. So it's not like you can just like figure out from sort on biased perspective, right right, distance myself, right, So I guess I was just trying to figure out and you know, sooner than later, because you know, trying to suck to be

in the prom Church and in car correction. So well, yeah, I mean I think I wouldn't base my decision on fear. I wouldn't base it on emotions. I think the only way to do it is to base it on spending time in the material and looking at the different arguments, because any other basis that you do, if you make a choice on that, it's

not gonna you're not going to be content with that. You're gonna be you know, when you're Orthodox for a year and you start seeing problems in the Orthodox Church, you're gonna move on to something else because the basis for which you came in was not solid. So I think that emotions and you know, threats and concerns. They play a role, but they can't ultimately be the deciding factor. So I would say it has to be on the basis

of the history, the theology, the objective facts. That's literally the only way to do it. Otherwise you're gonna be wandering through a mirage, through a maze of bad arguments and bad reasons. And a lot of times people choose churches for bad reasons, and that's the worst thing to do. For example, we almoll be a trag kit because that could be politically based. Okay, that's nothing to do with what Jesus is preaching in the Gospel,

right, Jesus is not preaching making you politically based. Now, there might be an outworking of political basement down the road, but the whole purpose of this is the transformation of you, right and theosis. If that's not your goal, it's not. If that's not the actual experience, then you're in a religion of dead works that is really just a model for some kind of political thing. And I think that's principally what papalism is. Papalism is the

worship of authority and something that eventually became geopolitical and humanistic. It is not ultimately about you undergoing repentance and transformation of yourself. That's why everything in that system is this weird transactional thing where I do whatever I want. I can be ridiculous all week and act like a behemoth, and then I go to confession and do my little transaction and I'm good. I mean, that's just ridiculous. Like the whole point of the religion is to for you to undergo

transformation, to become a partaker of the divine nature. Like I see that, Like that, that's that's what I want. Like you would ask most Christians that question. I think they would say that, you know, maybe not all of them, right, but the lot of the ones that will like keep their Bible every day and pray and things that you can give a church everyone. That seems like a pretty generic Christian answer. So okay, well, so let's be precise. So I'm not putting you on the spot.

I know, I know you're not necessarily debating, but I mean, what are some of the objections that you have, Like do you think Protestantism is more appealing or Roman Catholicism as opposed to Orthodox syne And I never really could figure out the whole thing, and I was raised Anglican. Hold On, I didn't you cut out the whole what the whole people infallibility deal? That just seems very sucks. Yeah, having come in eighteen hundred years after

Yea, Peter, sure, I am. I do been thinking that's suspicious. No, I've made a very argument many times, so I don't think it's dumb. Yeah. So, I mean, if there is one true church, right, then I guess I would have to default to orthodoxy. But on the other hand, like you know, I've seen a lot of good things happening in these Protestant areas, you know, like they'll become Christian, just generic Christian, and then you know their whole life is turned around

and it really seems like to do love Jesus. So it's like, I mean, how do I swear that with there's the whole there's only one church? Well, the fact that there's good things that happen and there's graces that exist in the outside the church, it's fine. That doesn't and that doesn't mean that those people aren't having a real experience of grace or that they're not moving towards Christ. But that doesn't negate the fact that there's only one body.

You know, Jesus says, for example, that there would be one flock and one shepherd, and he said, and Paul says, that there's one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body. So you can't have that existing amongst thousands of different sects. There's got to be one. And the only one that has the same theology of the first thousand years is

the Orthodox Church. There's literally no other one. So I think that what happens is that God's grace is everywhere, right, the Holy Spirit is on the present, and Maximus has there's a great section and at the Lastium where he talks about the different modes of the presence of the Holy Spirit. So there's a mode of the presence of the Holy Spirit that's everywhere, that's unique,

that's distinct from the mode of his presence in the Orthodox Church. So it's certainly true that people are being experiencing grace, but that grace is always a movement towards Orthodoxy. It's always a movement towards the source of that grace, which is the actual body of Christ. When Jesus became incarnate, he took on an actual historical physical body, right, and that same appellation of his body is said to the historical Church, meaning that it is also a

historical reality, that's a physical, actual local presence. And if you think about the Protestant interpretations of say Ephesians or Corinthians. When Paul's writing his letters, most Protestants, especially if they're coming from like a Calvinist classical Protestant perspective, they believe that those letters are written to the quote invisible Church, the true Christians that exists amongst the thirty thousand sects. But that's not who Paul's

writing those letters too. They're not addressed to the invisible church at corinth to the invisible Church at Ephesus. They're written to actual historical churches like Ephesus where Paul appointed Timothy to be bishop. You see. Yeah, so the Orthodox Church, for example, there's still a bishop of Ephesus. That's the that's the historic Church. So the fact that people in other groups experience promptings in the pullings of grace does not mean that therefore they are also the true Church.

That's the non sequitur. Okay, let me give you an example. There's a couple of chapters in Acts. I think it's like eight or nine, and then maybe like eighteen or nineteen where the apostles Paul and the apostles they go out and they find disciples and they go ahead and say, it's great that you guys have this faith. In one case, they are disciples of John who had not heard about the laying on of hands and the Holy

Spirit. Okay. And the Orthodox Study bubbles great on that on those sections because it explains that Paul is representing the episcopacy and he brings these people under the escapade. Say okay, so he brings them under. He doesn't say you had no experience of grace at all. He says, this is great,

but you need to be under the episcopacy. And that's what if you look at the history of the Orthodox Church, for example, the Antiochians, when you had there was a large group in the eighties of evangelicals that suddenly got interested in Orthodox here, right, and what do the Antiochians do. The Antiochians said, we will bring you in under the episcopate, doing the very thing that Paul did. So that's the I think that's the right approach,

is to not completely deny people's experiences and Protestantism wholesale. But to say that's great, but you need to come into the church and be under the episcopacy. And that's why Jesus says, when the apostle see the guy casting out demons, they say, should we forbid him? And Jesus says, we can't. We shouldn't forbid anybody because anybody who's truly doing these things in

my name, they will soon be with us. You see. So that text which people always used to try to prove a humanism, it's not actually a proof of a humanism. It's proof that Jesus actually says no, if he if he's serious, he'll join us. I'll have to reread those passages with that in mind, but thank you. Yeah, any more questions, Um, where does traditions start and where does it stop? Like what what

what constitutes the tradition? Right? Because you know you can say, okay, we've got this saint said that says that, how do you say you know this is a holy tradition, this writing of his saint, and this is just a regular tradition. Yeah. So, so, first of all, divine revelation is not the same as something that a saint said necessarily right. Divine revelation is the full teaching of the Apostles contained in the Apostolic deposit

both written and oral. So one of the great examples of trade is the liturgy and liturgy, for example, the style and structure of the church's worship, which is not actually listed anywhere in the New Testament. For example, it's a it's a it's a it's a thing that the Apostles gave to the

Church that is not in written form but is in performative form. In other words, it's it's a performance, it's a it's a structure that the Church did, rather than what the Church was concerned with writing a version of it and disseminating it. Because the Church from the earliest day has had a hierarchy, orthodoxy is both hierarchical and decentralized at the same time. So in the early Church you had people doing the liturgy, and the Bible is part of

the liturgy. The actual context of the Bible is to be heard in liturgical celebrations. Why, because that's how the Jews did it. The Jews read the texts. You could read them at home if you had David's scrolls, but actually they're meant to be heard in the liturgical worship of the community of the Church. So the Bible itself actually comes to be and to be codified

in terms of the canon via the liturgical tradition of the Church. A lot of people don't know this, but the decision of what books would go into the canon as many factors. One of those by the fifth and sixth century was looking at the liturgical texts and the daily readings of the church. So the daily readings the lectionaries had a key role in the determination of the Canada

Scripture. And that's even most Protestant scholars admit this. So liturgy is this one example of quote tradition of the Church that is indispensable from knowing what books go in the Bible. Tradition includes things like, you know, lies of the saints in that there's there are stories in their lives inspire us to live

rightly and to accept you know, martyrdom or whatever. Tradition is includes things like the decrees of the canons of the councils right, So even though a canon of a council is not equivalent to divine revelation, it's normative in the sense that you know, the Church has the authority to make these rulings. And that's because Jesus said, I you know, I've given you authority, right, he says to the church in Matthew sixteen Matthew eighteen, he says,

he that hears you. Here's me the church has the authority of Christ. And that means that they're going to develop a structure by which they can make canons and enforce them. So all of those things are part and parcel of tradition. But divine revelation is specific in that it is the theological teachings that the apostles taught from Christ, both in written and oral form. And that's that's the church fathers teach this. The New Testament teaches us. The

Old Testament taught the same thing. There was there was divine revelation contained in written and oral teaching. Okay, okay, I think that answers a question pretty well. Thank you so much, yet of good questions? All right, Jack, what's up? Jack? Thank you guys for those super chats. You have to hit the mute. People get we're just having fun today, right, So people are freaking out thinking that I was having a meltdown. Now, I always joke around on streams not a meltdown if you would

hit like and shared. Also, there is the stream labs link for super chats Jack Agent. I actually had one question I was waiting on. But you're something that you just mentioned there that I'll kind of interject your m My background is like kind of a great Baptist and then kind of with Presbyterian Reformed

And now I did the same thing. Okay, not that friend of mine just recently kind of turns kind of training on to your work and some of the Orthodox stuff you mentioned just now about you know, the liturgy, and that the Bible doesn't really talk about how church is supposed to be conducted. But one thing I really come into kind of defined a lot of what I think about the church is really around First Corinthians fourteen, where it says really

specifically that two or people two or three people should speak. There should be a time for response, as in critiquing and kind of judging publicly judging the speaker's words. You should be able to interrupt if one person is speaking. And the Conservative Church seems to me says, you know, they love First Corinthians fourteen thirty four, Wards says, let the woman keep silent in the church, but it seems like, you know, they just completely ignore it.

In that same passage, it says, if you claim to be your religious or spiritual person, but you don't acknowledge that this is how church is supposed to be conducted, then you're not even recognized. And it's a command specifically from Christ. And so I can't anymore. I think that the entire environment of the church, of any church, constant, anywhere else seems to me a very kind of almost cockled environment, because it's basically demeaning. Just

to me, I see the value of in Christ's incarnation. And then when he says I come as the first point in many brothers, I take that really seriously. I'm a brother to Christ. And so you know, also when you see even in Jesus teaching, he's always interacting, he's always dialoguing and debating with people. And so to me, this seems like the entire environment of a church where you have basically the paid professional religious elites or basically

telling everyone to shut up and sit down. I'm the only person that's qualified to speak about God, and you know, offer any kind of insights to me, it's so contrary to really the entire like, if you look at Jesus life, the kind of young and archetypes, who are the bad guys, who are the intruemies of God? Because it wasn't the government, it was the religious leaders. That's the people he hated and despised. So when I'm so, how do you reconcile kind of first things fourteen with the liturgy?

Sure? So, first point is that the Intertestamental period, as we call it, is a unique time. So when we have the apostles going out and establishing the church, there's a lot of things going on that will not necessarily be normative for the entire history of the Church. So for example, direct inspiration and sort of speaking in various languages and whatnot that we see at Pentecost, and Paul seems to be describing elements of this when he's talking

about the charismatic gifts to the Corinthians. And so the Holy Spirit inspires people to sort of prophesy or to say things, which we see in the Book of Acts, right, So we see different prophets and people inspire to sort of spontaneously do things in the Book of Acts, So you're correct that that does occur. However, that does not mean that that mode of worship or dialogue or debate or whatever that goes on in that early Apostolic siting would be

normative for the whole history of the Church. So once the destruction of the temple occurs and the apostles then spread the message, and eventually the last apostle, John dies, there's no longer going to be this kind of direct speaking of the Holy Spirit in that way. That doesn't mean there's not spiritual gifts, and there's not discernment and miracles or the Orthodox Church believes in all those

things. But what we believe is that even in the Book of Acts, Paul, I mean, excuse me, Corinthians, Paul talks about there being a form of worship. But what I meant was not that the New Testament doesn't critique or talk about how, roughly speaking, things should go. There's not an actual list and service structure. Okay, So in the Old Testament, like you know, obviously, God, if you read the story of Nate having a Bayhu and Lebticus, God's really concerned with how worship goes down.

You know what I mean? You can't just do whatever you want, because when Nate having a bay who lights strange fire, they get killed because they're doing it in an inappropriate, not structured way. God is not the other confusion we know. So so hold on, hold on last point, last point. Right. Last point is that from the very first days of the church we know that there is an ordered liturgical worship service because it's in

the Church Fathers. They discuss this. For example, early early on, Justin Martyr talks about the structure of the church service that it is liturgical. Paul has, for example, references in his epistles to various liturgical recitations and hymns that were being sung in the first century of the Church. And when you go to pretty standard scholarship amongst Protestants, in Evangelicals and even sort of like even Calvinist his liturgists, they will admit that the earliest services were liturgical

worship. There's a great book by Hugh Wybrew called Orthodox Liturgy, and he's himself as an Anglican and he's writing about the history of liturgical worship. There's another great book called Orthodox Worship Content. Hold on continuity. Last is the last point. Continuity with the Synagogue, the Temple, and the Early Church by Williams an install And what you see in these in these texts is the admission that the first century of the Church worshiped in a liturgical way, much

like Jews worshiped at the synagogue and the Temple. When Jesus went to worship, that's how he worshiped. So we actually know how the ancient Jews and the Early Church worshiped, and it is the way that the Orthodox Church worship is worships. Ultimately, it's kind of your I feel like you're you're it's there asking these religiousy leads are basically asking me to give up what Christ promised

me. I mean, even it says when when when God gives it the First Corinthians fourteen, he says, or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that are reached? If anyone thinks that he himself to be a prophet or spiritual and hicknowledge of things like which I write to are commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant,

let him be ignorant. The entire passage of First Christ fourteen is it really communicates that seems even more normative that even though he's actually kind of rebuking the Corinthians because they have diverged from the normal way that Christ interacted with people. So again, you did you not hear I'm not being rude to but you sort of repeated what I said as if what I said you quoted a bunch of books. I just can't I don't know the reference that I had to

go back and look and see what their specific debate arguments are. No, I didn't just quote books. I also pointed out that there's an established structure of liturgical worship that God has always had in place, and your response was to ignore all that and just restate the fact that, yeah, but Jesus dialogue with people. Yeah but Jesus going out and doing minute, Jesus going out and listen, Jesus going out Paul and Peter, Paul confriended Peter in

the congregation. So okay, there's no You just assumed that everything that happened in the Apostolic period is normative for the rest of the history of the Church. Do you think we still have apostles? Right? Well, I mean, I was just saying, ultimately that you defer to the authority of the institutional structure. Correct, So, but do you understand the difference between the Pharisees were a false religious structure that we're persecuting Christ Jesus established a church structure.

Yeah, I mean you're talking about You mentioned that this is the liturgy was kind of from the beginning of the ages, And what's your thoughts on like the you know, the communion the Lord's Table was conducted as a meal. A copy. It's not true. None of that's true. Years, that's not true. It's not true. That's pretty well. You don't think that was. There was no gopy feast. I just did. No, the the feast afterwards is not the eucharistic liturgy Paul talks about in Hebrews thirteen

an altar which we eat from. Protestants don't believe in an altar that you eat from. But listen in the Didak it's very clearly called the bittocky in all of the early Church is very clearly a meal. Did you not hear what I said? The meal is not the same thing as the Eucharist. Yeah, they would have a feast after sure, it is. Actually that's how Jesus not even no it's not. You're just selling it practice. No, Jesus is doing a eucharistic liturgy, which is the fulfillment of the temple

and levitical service. Yeah, I mean it might be worth it to go look and look up because it's really not disputed with For the first hundred fifty years it was. You just didn't listen to anything that I said. It is disputed. You're not even don't you don't even know how to pronounce that. You're not even pronouncing the text correct that you're sighting. It's the diddicky and the didacky talks about the eucharistic liturgy, and that's not the same thing

as a feast that they have afterwards. Okay, I'll go back and listen to the replay because I do want to look up those those couple of books that you mentioned. Okay, the original clown. Yeah, well, I'm about to move on because I'm gonna start getting mad and then people are gonna say that I'm being me, So we're gonna move on. Orthogone. Hello, yes, sir, you're trying to shoot in a damn nail gun when

you're on a live stream. Come on, man, von Schleef if you already did your your question, please don't come back immediately with another question. Let's we want to get through different people. Uh you hear me, Jack,

Yep? How you doing? Hey? Um? Uh So the last couple of years, as I've kind of dive deeper into orthodoxy, UM, you know, I've I've started to become a lot less classical liberal and my thinking about things, you know, think about my rights and my Constitution and like acting like those are these UM divine things when they're just when they're not UM. But at the same time, like when I'm talking to people about

UM certain issues. UM. The other week, I was talking to someone about like the Second Amendment UM as an example, and we were we were just having a discussion about it. UM is there like you know, like my my prior self would have you know, again talked about like oh, you know, my right to this or my right to that. But again, like my my thinking sort to kind of change a bit about UM how I approach these issues. But like from a from an orthodox standpoint, is

it just something that's it's kind of subjective. You can you know, have your own opinion on it, just like you know, is it something you should out of the Second Amendment. Let's let's let's use that as an example. Um, is it? You know, I don't mean I don't think the church the church has like an official wing one or the other of what they think. But I mean, well, I'm sorry, Well, Divine

Revelation trump's the cannons of the Church. So I mean, I'm not saying that the canons of the church or contrary to the I mean, but I'm saying the Divine Revelation says you have a right to self defense. It's an exodus. Okay, okay, okay, So, um, using that as the the starting point, then that will logically conclude that, you know, having ways to defend yourself would be justified like from a from a Christian in

orthodoxy. Now you have to defend your family. I mean, go look up the ro Corps studies on ro Corps, history of rod Corps study on war. Okay, okay, yeah, I mean imagine saying, oh, you're a man, but you can't defend your family. I mean what yeah, yeah, And obviously you know, living in the modern world, like, um, having a firearm is would be the best way to do that. So it makes sense that then you know you'd be able to to have one of course. Okay, got you, got you all right, Well

I'll look into that. That helps Jay, Yeah, yeah, just be thinking about the lot good questions. Yeah yeah, I definitely believe that the Bible teaches together right self defense in Exodus. Duke of In in Inderta welcome everybody. You want to support the stream, you can do so via the super chat function. You can also support me via the links that are in the show description. You can get my philosophy course twelve lectures on the history

of Western philosophy over at Richard Grows Autonomy marketplace. You can get tickets to our live event with Jamie Kennedy in Los Angeles July six. They're at the event right link. You can call in via Twitter space as if you want to. You can have the floor for as long as you'd like. If you'd like to make an argument, if you'd like to ask a question, it's fine with me. You have to have it on your phone. It does not work on PC, and you will be automatically muted because that's how

it works. It's not me muting you. Please don't make me say mute twenty times if I give you. If I say your name and you come on just talk. You can send super chats by stream labs. Everybody says, how can I send a super chat? Stream labs stream labs stream labs stream labs link right there? This channel is not monetized. Are you there, dude? Yes, I'm hey, what's up? I don't so,

I'm doing great? How much? Right? So my question to use about the Oriental Artho Church, but first element to say a couple of things. Can you speak up Oriental orthodox I could barely hear you, Okay, So I was I was just saying I've been listening to your video and sent debates for when I you've gotten basically interested in between Christians theology. But yeah, it was your videos and helped me when I was losing faith and stuff.

But anyways, okay, so my question, my question is this is myphritism, my physicism in your opinion wrong nothing, get our opinion. But like Eastern Orthodoxy, is it wrong or not? Yeah, it's wrong if you interpret it in the way that the Orientals so called do when they confuse nature in person and they don't allow any flexibility on the language. And that's why the later Cyril and the two letters to six senses says what we say.

And so there's a section of John damascus Is on the Orthodox Faith where he gives our reading of the word meaflusis. So if you just mean that Christ is, if you just mean the hyposidic union, that's fine. We agree with that. But we don't think that Christ is a tertium quid a third thing. So we've done probably ten streams on this. You can go find the streams that I've done with David real med White, David Arhan. Look up those. There's countless of those. Okay, Well, so let me

let me put it like this. So if I think Christ is basically fully human and fully diffined, but in one nature and one united nature, is it yeah, because nature has a specific terminology terminological use for us that the later Councils specify that you have to distinguish nature in person. So if by one incarnate quote nature you mean that it's a hypostatic union and he's only one divine person, that's the decree of the Fifth Council that's attempting to reconcile you,

guys. If you mean that there's no longer the continuance of two natures and two natural two with two natural properties. That's heretical because did Christ did his human did his divine nature die on the cross? I mean, it's really obvious that that's not true, right, It would lead to it would lead to absurd notions. Okay, yeah, go watch the discussions with me and David Arhan. We've we've done a ton of these. It gets really complex. Chandler, what's up, dude. I'm mute, all right,

moving on if you can't, I'm mute. I don't know what to tell you. I feel sorry for you. Stroke guru. Guys, it automatically mutes you just unmute. Here, I am here, I am hey. Okay. So Saint Augustine has it that novum Testamentum in vetua latet vetus Testamentum in novo patet the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament. This canon of interpretation is a standard part of the Catholic approach to the Bible. That's from Catholicism dot Org.

Yeah, I'm well aware of that quote. What about it? So earlier you were saying that Catholics do not teach that the Trinity is in the Old Testament. But this contradicts that, right, So the guy was very specifically saying that the dogma of the Trinity is not taught in the New Testament, or it's give me the Old Testament, because he's talking about the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicia. By the way, do you understand

you under you understand that Augustine is also an Orthodox saint. So the fact that you quote a saint that's the same between Orthodox and Roman Catholics does not prove that that's Roman Catholic dogma. But they do teach that the Trinity is in the Old test Yeah, And my point is that they contradict themselves because

the teaching of Vatican two and Natural Theology contradicts that. Where does it say that in Vatican too when it teaches on natural theology and nosratate that Muslims and Jews and Christians worship the same God because of monotheism, They don't the Old Testament teaches the Trinity. So all you're doing is pointing out contradictions in the Roman Catholic view. It's gonna really how I felt when you debated Trent Horn, I kind of feel like you smash to you natural theology. Nobody didn't

because everything that you're saying shows that you didn't even understand the debate. Well that's what you're saying. Whoa what a lot of people think. I don't care what a lot of people think, because a lot of people who are Roman Catholics in the comments think that Trent lost the debate too. So how do you understand that he would? Do you understand that what you just said

contradicts Trent's whole argument? Are you that slow? Well, there's no reason to make at home in him attacks their little buddy, you don't have the Holy Spirit talk, So this is what he goes this is what he goes to, right, So the so the church fathers don't have the wor the Holy so they don't have they don't have the Holy Spirit when they call people, uh to work with you? Bro, bro true, I don't care. I don't care what you have, no argument? So I just showed

that you were an idiot. No, you didn't know, you didn't. She's just words out. So this is all these guys do is spew out this stupid stuff to the audience. Bro, you just contradict. You understand that Trent teaches at Trent. He's not even he can't even address the argument. He can't control himself because these people are learning Masters in Cia. Like you don't think the CIA is aware that you got a Masters in Cia.

Like, they're just gonna let you, like expose them, a masters in Cia, not even a coherent to see, thank you, Roman Catholics, Keep it up, keep it up. He didn't even realize that the dumb quote, the quote mind that he had is the opposite of what Trent argued in the debate. Trent said that the Old Testament doesn't teach the Trinity right, illustrating my point. The Roman Caloic theology contradicts. So so you see, you see the absurdity and the ridiculousness of Roman Catholics. And then what

does he do. He launches into this reformed uh or axcuse me, this uh Roman Caloic disputing of nonsense. I got a masters in Cia. I'm gonna say that was so dumb that that had to be a troll. But then again, with Roman Catholics, you never know, you never could easily be a legit just low iq Roman caw that you can never know, Joseph. So we had a we had a pull at the beginning as to how many trolls would show up, and we said two or under. So I'm gonna say, was that I mean, that was so dumb. I can't

figure out if that was. Did you get your degree? And see it is imagine thinking that CIA is a degree. I got my degree in CIA. Wow. I kind of wish you to what's up, Joseph, ahead, you gotta have some patience with the Catholic traads this week because it's been one sex scandal after another. It's just really imploding. And when when I tried it in age these people on Twitter, their response is always will you guys allow you know, divorce, rey marriage and contraception? So you know

that's that's all they are. Yeah, all they have is what they think is a moral one up, which is really signifying complete defeat. I mean that guy, that guy didn't even realize that the very thing he's arguing is the opposite of Trent's argument in the debate. But yeah, great points, Joseph. There was anything else you wanted to say? No? Yeah, I meant, you know, you're cutting out so I'm sorry, We'll move on. Yeah, I mean that's all Roman Catholicism has left is this kind

of stuff. And by the way, you notice the commonality between the people who like lose their mind over me and that guy and the soy so called orthosphere, it's always the exact same, right, they just launch into the spewing of a bunch of nonsense. The I with you. Look at you, man, beloid the curtain soul? What's up dude? How's it going? Does that guy think that that's gonna make romcas also isn't appealing to anyone?

Just how stupid and low like you? That was? Well, I'm here to expose you, Jay, Please, do I need to be exposed? It's time finally the giant pyramid. But six scheme you've got going in your backyard? Got all the evidence? No, I'm just kidding. What's up? Um? So? I was actually the talk with Father Peter here's um yesterday and he was talking about he seemed to be arguing against the humanism on the basis that you really can't be good without being conjoined or communing with

Christ in the body. Well, I mean when you say be good ultimately for us being good means partaken of theosis. But I mean you can be good in the sense of you can have virtues right without necessarily being in the Orthodox Church, because there's the mode of Christ's presence or the Spirit's presence is different in different situations. So his presence in the world in an omnipresence way

is different than the mode of His presence in the Church. So I would just be more precise about the word good there, like qualify what do we mean good? Because there is a distinction between nature and grace. That's not just a Roman Calvic thing. St. Gregory Palamus is very clear that there

is a distinction between nature and grace. That doesn't mean that we have the nature grace two tiered dialectical scheme that we find in Roman Catholicism, but it does mean that, as Paul says in Romans too, people can in any religion or in the world, because the laws in their heart, the Word is near you, the Logos is in your heart, they can still do virtuous actions. Yeah. So me and my brother have been debating this and he brought up, you know, the law being written on your heart.

And when I go to Romans two and three, I'm reading Saint JOHNI. Persostum's homily on Romans two and three. Um. He Paul seems to be making the argument that the Jews are condemned under the law of Moses and the Gentiles are condemned under the law of nature, the law written under Yeah, but he says when they do right, they are either accused or excused. Yeah. And see when when you go to the fathers on that you get what I'm what it seems they don't seem to be taken that as Oh well,

these people can somehow be like saved through these goods. No, no, no, I didn't say saying no, no, no, I didn't say that. I said they can be accused or excused on the basis of the actions, not the person themselves being saved. Okay, So when a pagan does something right, can he make can he do a good act?

Absolutely? I mean human beings have a let's say, I mean it would be a Calvinist view to think, for example that I'm not saying you're saying this, but to think, for example that if a pagan mom loves her son right, there is a created human energy of love that's proper to our nature right, where you can't have love for your for your siblings right. And to think that everything that a pagan does is inherently sinful or automatically sinful

is actually a Manichean slash Calvinist view. It would mean that every action is sinful in some way. That's not true. Okay, So there's a distinction between nature and grace, and you can do naturally virtuous actions. That's why let me give you an example. In the Homilies of Saint Ambrose. He picks out the class sickle pagan virtues and he ties them into how Christians can understand and read them. So what I'm saying is that not everything in the

classical pagan world of virtues is false. That's why they're Many of the church fathers will cite Aristotle and cite his you know, text on virtue versus vice. Right, that wouldn't be the that wouldn't be the case if every action that you did was sinful in some way. That's Calvinism. Yeah, I don't think I would want to argue that every action is sinful in some way. It's just he's thrown I wish I had all of his like PDF for um, what he was going through because he had a bunch of quotes from

the fathers. Um, one of the ones, I do have a screen shot. Well he who's who? Hold on? He he? What's his what's his art? What's his position? I don't know? Is this a Calvinist roma cal that? What's his position? Well, what's Father Peter here? So it's oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I forgot you were

talking about in the text of a Humanism. So he's then flipping and saying that the heterodox rights can't have grace in them on the basis of them not actually okay, yeah, but so I'm not sure about his argument, but yeah, it's it really doesn't matter about like just because you're I mean, the natural virtues that are proper to human nature, they also come from Christ,

Maximus says, and they do point this to Christ. But they're not equivalent to theosis, you see, So, um, could we argue that because there are I mean, I just don't understand the connection between whether there are virtues in the pagan world to the heterodox not having grace and the sacraments. I mean I don't think that they do. So, yes, So if you'll let me quote Saint Cyril. Real quick, I'll get off. But so Saint Cyril, and you can just explain what this is, what

you think this quote means. Saint Cyril Jerusalem rights that the manner of piety or fear of God consists of these two of pious dogmas and of good deeds. And either the dogmas without good works that is life in Christ, are acceptable, are acceptable to God. Nor does God accept works done without pious

dogmas. That is the truth of Christ. And yeah, but where am I misunderstanding here because it does seem to be saying with like without pious dogmas, without the dogmas of the Church. So again, so again, if you read out the last Seam or Saint Maximus talks about the mode of the presence of the spirit, it's different in the world as it is in the Church. So God can accept and appreciate the virtues that men have that are natural virtues. That does not mean that they're being saved that is theosis.

Those are things that move us and point us in the direction of theosis, but they're not theosis. So in one sense they're acceptable in God appreciates when a pagan mom loves her son, but that doesn't make her saved. Okay, So acceptance in one sense, not acceptance in another sense. Okay, all right, that's all I got, Man Dawkin. Yeah, I mean,

Saint Cyril Jerusalem is not doing an ex curse. Saint Cyril Jerusalem is not doing an excursus on the status of classical virtues and being precise about He's saying, two Christians, what matters? Right? Yeah, just a second, So he's explaining. He's explaining what matters ultimately for us. He's not explaining the speculative question about whether God in any sense appreciates the love that a mom has for her son. So again, the natural virtues are not inherently

sinful. They don't necessarily save us, but they are They orient us to grace and to Christ because our nature is not evil. Okay, we can't have a theology that says that all of our works before Christ are inherently evil. Okay, that's too black and white. There are natural virtues. Natural virtues don't grant us theosis and salvation, but they orient us in that direction. And that's pretty common amongst the church fathers. So if you find a

quote of Cyril Jerusalem, I'm not knocking anybody for doing that. But I'm saying that Cyril is not talking about the topic of does God accept any virtuous actions at all? Yes, he does, Cornelius praise and God hears his prayers even before Cornelius knew about Christ and had a full out, worked out theology in the church. Okay, but that doesn't mean that you're saved from

natural It doesn't mean you're saved or participating in theosis from natural virtues. And the reason we say that is that you cannot say that everyone's actions are sinful merely via nature. That would be a kind of Manichean or Calvinist view. So again, there's a difference between works that are proper to our nature, that are virtuous and participating in theosis. There's a distinction between nature and grace. That's very clear in Saint Gregor Palmus. What's up? Man? Hey,

what's up? Broth? So I have a question about the doctrinal assurance and orthodoxy and so like, how does news have a doctional assurance and how does this play into episode justification? Like can you actually have assurance on the basis of like your justified true beliefs being true? Wait, I thought you were talking about assurance of salvation. That's different from philosophical justification and epistemology, which one are you talking about? No, I'm saying, like, can

you can you have you know, philosophical episdemic justification? Uh? And that lead to assurance, like because like that doesn't just necessarily presuppose that if your worldview is true, then that means the Christian faith is true? Right? Yeah, I thought you were talking about the evangelical concern with the doctrine of assurance of salvation. That's different from the question of epistemic justification assurance. But like, and is it really different though? Or like is like from from

my eyes? Yeah, they're different. They're totally different topics the same thing. They're not the same thing. They're totally true. Wouldn't that mean no, they're not the same thing. Can you not hear me? No, they're different topics, so they're not the same thing. I'm but I'm trying to figure out how they're on the same thing because one of them is about your individual situation in relationship to your relationship to Christ. The other one is

about objective facts and logic and whether or not a worldview is coherent. Two totally different things. But like I'm not seeing that they're different things, because like it's like like they're necessarily interested that we tied together, like the Christian faith in your own faith are. Yeah, they might have a relation. Yeah, they might have a relation. But one of them is a question of your situation to the religion. The other one is a question of the

factual truth or falsity of the religion. Two different things. I just I don't see that they're different things though, this thing because m from like my own understanding, Like I just think that they're inextricably tied together, like because like from from in my personal situation. Can you not under listen? Hold on? So I'm not saying they're not related. Anything can be related philosophically,

but the fact that they're related doesn't make them the same. But wait, you're not explaining how they do doesn't make them the same though, So, um, is there a difference between my belief in or excuse me, let's let's put it this way, my relationship to the Communist party versus my knowledge of communist philosophy? Are those two things different? M Yes, they are different, but they're also linked, right, But they're different yeah,

they are different. Okay, we're gonna move on now. Trying to be me with you, but I'm gonna start getting mad, So Alex Chromatic, I'm you Jay Dyer. Yes, sir, hey man, I don't really have anything to debate you on. I just wanted to let you know. There's a YouTuber by the name Reckless Ben, and he supposed reckless without a w Reckless Band b M. And he did like a nineteen part expose on the Twelve Tribes where he actually like infiltrated the colt with spyglasses and spy watches

and he made like this really insane like expose on them. And I just wanted to let you know real quick that I thought it's on a playlist that he has on his channel. I thought that would be a really dope content for like if you're gonna do another like cold live stream. Okay, y'all check that out, Reckless Ben, you said. And also I just wanted to say, Oh, she's my little guru. I met her one Instagram. Nice. I like that, Yeah, baby, thank you for that.

I'll check out Reckless Ben. Let's see Dark Armor night. What's up, dude? What's that jaky yeah, ye, perfects. All right. Um, it looks like I'm the second Orthodox Christian from so I guess you're what, speak up? I can't hear you? What can you hear me? Now? Yeah? Go ahead, you're what? Um? Where I'm from the region of to grive, where my, my, my, where my brand of Orthodoxy comes from. There's this popular belief that we have the

first remnants of human life that's called you heard of Lucy. You're talking about that dumb ape theory of Lucy. Yeah? Yeah, And I was going to ask you about exit Jesus of Genesis. On the sixth Day, it said that God friend man, but then after the day of Rest, on the sound Day, he restates himself. How does your view of evolution work with this sort of reading of Genesis? Uh, let you know, I'm not I'm not a promoter of the Lucy theory. Just OK. Yeah.

I think that the two different sections of Genesis are talking about God's vantage point to human beings in two different relationships. So one is God's creator and then the other is God's relationship to man. But I'm not sure why that's a problem or what does do with Lucy? What's up? Peter I'm you, hi, j how's it going, Hey man, how you been I'm talk to you in a while. Yeah, yeah, I'm good. How are you doing good? What's on your mind? I've said a question about the

term logi? Is that a turn like besides Saint Maximus? Are there other fathers who use the term logi in this in sort of the same way that he does, or is that kind of a unique thing to the same Maximus. No, I mean it's the older version of the logo spermaticos, which predates even I mean, that's in the Presocratics. So the logo spermaticos is a Presocratic doctrine. We find it in Justin Martyr, we find it in the apologists of the first and second century, some of whom unfortunately ended up

heterodox. Basil talks about the logi. John Damascus, I think, mentions it, but Maximus is the first to really go in depth. Okay, thanks, yeah, good question, right, So I remember, guys, it's open for him. You can have the floor. You can make whatever arguments you want. Just please make arguments and make them coherent, and please avoid the tragcat verbal diarrhea of nonsense if you can't. Although It is pretty entertaining, and I think it helps to steer people away from the insanity of

Track out World. But Cyprian, what's up? Hey, what's up? What's up? Yeah? So, um, you know who Christian Wagner is. Oh, well you know him. Um there was like an unlisted stream he did on a Kyle's video, and um, there's a point in the stream where he makes one of Kyle's haying the essence drives from the Father, not the Father, from the essence, and then he just calls it nonsense. But I've read like Saint Gregory's Triads, and that just comes directly from

like the last chapter. I'm just wondering, that's like talking about the order theology, not like the principle by which the essence like drives itself from the Father, right, sure. I mean the order of theology is that we begin with a person of the Father. And you know, it's pretty basic Nicene theology that the father, that the son is generated from the father's nature. So he receives from the Father both his personhood and his essence because he

is the direct icon and image of the Father's nature. So you can't have you can't have the generation of the Son without the hypostasis of the Son also being generated. It's both come from the Father, and this is this is stated in later counsels that the existence of the Son and the existence of the Holy Spirit both derive their origin whole and entire from the person of the Father, right, right, But that's because persons act, not natures. Natures

exist in the mode of the persons who have those natures to act. Yep Um, I think I have two more questions. So there are a lot of like Muslims, and they'll always bring up like, oh, you know, Jesus, he was praying to the Father in the garden of Caosemite. But like you think, like Jesus is like omniscient, right, So like how would that work? And I usually think you just need like the human mind and the divine mind in order to have like a like a prayer relation,

right, And so that yeah, that would just answering. Well, I mean, the Trinity has always been a community and a communion from all eternity, so there's always an exchange amongst the persons, and so the Son has always been relating to and loving and reflecting the Father always, And so when Jesus is giving us that example. It is not just proper to the human nature and the human mind. It is he is setting an example.

But he also has always had that derivative relationship from the Father. He always came forth from the Father, he always loved the Father. And by the way, if Actus purists is true in the Roman Catholic sense, then none

of that makes any sense. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Um. Okay, my last question is, Um, this might be a little bit more like complicated, but it's on the like the covenant of works like reform theology, the image of God. How they'll say, like some of them will say, like okay, after the fall, you gain the sin nature and then you lose the image of God, which means you just don't have the capacity to receive the spirit. And so it's like a purely external thing

when you're like you know, justified, sanctified, et cetera. Right, Um, And like Perry Robinson makes the argument that like that's Polagian, right, because it collapse the nature grace distinction. Right, Yeah, it is Plagian, correct. Yeah, it's the Polagian view of prelapsarian man. Correct. Yeah, And that just comes from like some sort of like categorical like monergism. Right, basically which thing the confusing and the confusing and nature in

person comes from the default acceptance of Augustinian theology. So augustin and theology confuses nature in person in a triad that gets confused in a human anthropology and in steriology. So reform theology is kind of defaulted to adopting all of that. Oh, I mean more like them, what is it the total depravity like losing any like capacity to like bringing the spirit outside of something like external to

us. Sure, but right, that's correct. But I'm just saying that all of these kind of flow out of the triadic mistake, so that the mistake in the triad is what leads to all the way down to the errors in steriology where they believe in monarchism, because then your nature has to be completely overcome because you're inherently in rebellion against God. Yeah. Yeah, and that's like the mono energism like ridiculous to make Yeah, Okay, that's it.

I don't really have anything else to ask. Yeah, great, great points. And I mean yeah, if you think about the Covenant, it works makes no sense because it's basically also amounting to Jesus coming and merit and created grace. And so that means the ultimately reformed theology is it's presenting another

form of created grace, which is what Roman Catholicism efficiently teaches. Jerome, you gotta hit I mute bro Hey, you can hear me, yes, sir, Hey, I'm just wondering about when debating with people from an atheist worldview. Um, you know, we're gonna try to point them towards Christianity or whatever, because if you just trying to convince them of a God, no, it's not really good enough. Most of the time. There's no such thing as generic God. Doesn't exist. Say that again, there's no

such thing as generic God. It doesn't exist. There's no there's no such thing as that's natural theology by the way, right, So you can't really do that. But one thing I have our time with these conversations is the discussion of creation itself, because I feel like from an atheist worldview, it's so hard to get past that. Everything else is impossible to convince them of.

What are your thoughts on that you're saying, how to convince an eighth like, how would I argue that there is a doctrine of creation to an atheist. Yeah, because it's so hard for them to get past because of their worldview that that part of it. You can't even get past that part of it. And if you can't get past that part, how do you get past any other part? Yeah. So that's why presuppositionalism and tag is so important, because that they've gotten the cart before the horse. It's like,

whoa wa, whoa, let's let's let's rewind here. You're gonna tell me about, you know, the beginning of the universe and all this stuff, when I don't even think that you can give an account for knowledge itself. You see, that's a much more so. In other words, you gotta rather than argue with them over creation, I'm going to argue with them over the presuppositions of their worldview. And I'm not going to grant that they

can even make claims about the world or history at all. Sure, let's say they get that far and they say, okay, I will use your methodology. I'll go the other sort of the other direction that I'm used to. If we're trying to get them convinced of Christianity, especially Orthodox Christianity, it's not so much that there's a God that we're trying to convince them of as the Christian worldview, but the story of creation at the very beginning of

Genesis. I have a hard time getting them past that. Not just me, but I see that online all the time, Like that's the story specifically, it's historical. But they can't even get past that part even if they're trying to believe that there's a God. Well, I mean, there's different ways you could take that line of argumentation. I mean, why, why is what they think is the case a better explanation? To me, it

seems even more ridiculous. Yeah, it's it's not a better explanation. But from their worldview, they're not just going to be like, oh, well, okay, well let's put it. Let's put it this way. So like, right, I mean, there's a there is a process to this, even though I mean, even though the worldview itself is a whole system, most people don't immediately adopt the whole worldview in their chronological existential experience.

That's true. So it's true that you know, a person might first begin to think, maybe there's a God, and maybe there's design, maybe there's purpose, and they're not necessarily adopting the whole Christian system. That, by the way, doesn't make natural theology too true because they're because they're going through this process piecemeal. That doesn't make natural theology the case as if those things are true because a person chronologically piecemeal goes through that that has nothing to do

with what's objectively the case. That's confusing your own temporal discovery of things with the fact that this is objectively the case. I know you're not saying that, but so yeah, we might have to, you know, work through a lot of different topics over a long time. In fact, it took me a long time before I decided that the theistic evolution narrative made no sense, right, I held off on that question until I spent a good time

reading about it and hearing the various positions and argument. So, yeah, it's true that not everybody's going to overnight accept it. So but I wouldn't worry too much about that because I think over time, people if they're honest and since here they're going to come to the right conclusions, they're going to see the problems in the evolutionary narratives. So I wouldn't worry too much about

trying to get them to immediately accept the entire worldview. It's enough, I think, to critique their basic presubpositions and get them understanding that their materialistic atheist narrative can't even do anything. It can't give an account for ethics, knowledge, metaphysics, You can't even make sentences in that world be if they were consistent. So if you could get them thinking that, don't worry too much

about also trying to convince them immediately the doction of creation. That'll come down the road. But if you're debating somebody specifically on the doction of creation, there are philosophical arguments that you can present, like pointing out the you know, like if if the universe has always just been here right, then there's not really any good account for why there's change or why there's movement at all.

So you could utilize some kinds of arguments like that. I mean, there are ways you can go about critiquing It just depends on what specifically what their position is like, are they saying that no, it's the Big Bang, or they saying no, it's the universe was eas eternal, or there's different philosophical routes you can take to critique that. And you know, humans, for example, happen to be constituted such that they learn and experience things

in beginning, middle, and end. So there is the structure to how we learn things beginning, middle and end. But if, for example, the universe has always forever been here, then there's not actually a basis to believe in the transcendental presupposition of time right, which is beginning, which is movement from past, present, future, beginning, middle end. You see

how there's a there's a structure there. And even in language, for example, every linguistic communication is it moves from beginning, middle, and end. And you can show this philosophically. There's actually some really good essays that show the presuppositions the transiddle categories necessary for language to be possible. And one of those is the movement, a movement and time from beginning, middle to end. Every conversation that's meaningful has a beginning, middle, and and end.

In fact, I think it's even Alistair McIntyre, the famous virtue ethosist, He has a whole essay on the patterns of every every linguistic communication event okay, beginning, middle, and end. So if there is no beginning, middle, and end. Ever, then we don't really have a basis to believe in beginning, middle, and in our conversations. And if our conversations don't have beginning, middle, and end, then everything is kind of illusory. The movement, the change is illusory, you see. And some Eastern

philosophies go in that direction. But maybe they believe in the Big Bang. That's a different course of critique that you could do. I mean, it just depends on the atheist. You need to know exactly what kind of an atheist thing they're presenting, I think to really critique it. Good, right, Well, yeah, these are just my moron friends. So it's it's really not very difficult using your using tag and other arguments. I've got them to like be on the ropes with their atheists view. But it's the actual

creation story itself that they always do. Well, that's really yeah, that's defaultedness and say, well that can't I can't believe anything else there because that can't be true. That's I know, it's not really valid argument from their side. Well, that's the thing, is right, So, I mean,

creation is not a doctrine of natural theology. Creation is according to Hebrews a doctrine of divine revelation creation X Neilo is we know that not by speculation deduction, but by divine revelation, right, yeah, yeah, yeah, so yeah, I mean it's it's like Saint Justin Popovich says, like, you can't believe these things and truly know these things without repentance because they're not

actually ultimately intellectual problems. You can point out the intellectual problems and dilemmas, but just knowing the problems aren't actually enough to get people to change or to get them to believe like they have to repent. So that so this is a radical position here that a lot of people don't understand. They don't believe,

like man's problem is not intellectual, it's moral. Yeah, anyway, hopefully that's helpful, but it really just you just gotta yeah, I just gotta ask a lot of questions to get the atheist guy to like lay out exactly what his worldview is, and usually they'll just say a bunch of ridiculous, contradictory nonsense. I got, let me go t T put a little music on. We'll keep going here because we haven't even gone two hours yet. But let me use the little girls room and I'll be right backs spelling

and staying all right, I'm back. I had to go little girls room. Hey, go T T. Jamie's in there grinding up the coffee for me. What's up? We got still got four hundred people that we got up to like five hundred. We still got about four hundred over here, so let's see. We got requests. Zach, next up? What's up? Zach? Hey? Jakie here, Yeah, hey, my So my question, So I just came out of the Protestant world and your your videos

and all that has been super helpful to leading me to Orthodoxes. Just want to say thank you for that. I'm becoming more and more convinced but every day. But my question is what advice would you would you have for continuing

to interact with people in those heterodox to worlds? Right, Because the more that I become convinced of Orthodoxy, the more I realize that they're they're mutually exclusive, right, these these are two different religions, and so with people I care about obviously I don't, I mean, I care about the truth, but like, how what advice would you give on how to relate to them and have conversations with them. And yeah, I would say that,

um, tailor your discussions to the people because you know them well. Don't try to debate with your parents or your family members or you're never going to convince like a parent through argumentation and logic. Try to influence them in subtle ways. Um. If it's your compatriots, people your age and you guys like to debate, then have at it, right, but just note note the relation that you have to the individual before trying to, you know,

engage at a confrontational level or whatever. If you're if it's your bros,

you know they can handle that. Um. But I would also say that although it's natural for us as we work through these issues to want to debate them a lot, don't go too heavy into trying to debate them until you spend a good amount of time in catechy sis and learning the theology for a few years, and then you know, you'll be a little more equipped because you need to kind of go through the process of you know, living this and whatnot and being in the church and being in the liturgy for a while.

Because at first you're going to be you know, super zealous and you're gonna be like, you know, a new convert with that new convert zeal But yeah, don't press up your mom. Somebody said the chat exactly. It's not gonna be. It's not gonna get you anywhere. Um. And then you're gonna encounter issues, right, You're gonna start having your problems in the Orthodox such, you're gonna have struggles with people. You're gonna have issues

with priests maybe you know who knows. But take your time and be really slow about it, is what I would say, Believe it or not. That's my advice to that question. But so, soul, did you want to make another comment? By the way, I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just I was frustrated trying to express what I was trying to say. I wasn't mad at you. Oh you're fine, man. No, I didn't take it. I didn't take it a bad way at all. Um. The guy brought up evolution to you a second ago, and

I've had a thought on and I wanted to run it past you. So so I think it's al Kripke who does the whole water is h two? Oh thing are you familiar with like the phillis? I'm not familiar with like philosophical responses to that and stuff. So I don't know a lot about Kripkey. I mean, father Deacon would be a better person. Who I mean, he studied Saul Kripkey pretty in detail. But um so, no,

I don't know about this argument. Okay, Well, I was just gonna well, pretty much the gist of it is, he says water is H two oh, and then he uses the law of identity to essentially say, in a modal sense, that's true across all possible worlds. So if there is water in some other possible world, right, then it's H two oh. And that's because you find that out. Since you find that out through observation. You don't know that a priori that water is H two oh.

Well, this sounds like the I mean, I don't I don't know. I didn't know Kripkey made this argument. But I've made the argument about you know, just I would argue I've argued against multiverse on the base of the live identity. Yeah, I'm not really talking about a multiverse though, I'm just talking about the notion. I'm just using possible world se Mannix to talk about I know that you're not saying, I know you're not talking about multiverse.

I'm just saying that I'm familiar with kind of what you're saying because of the argument I've used against the multiverse. Okay, so I was one. And if you think that you can flip this onto evolution and say that like something like a category like a dog, right is, you don't know everything about a dog and dogs until you've experienced many particulars amongst the community of dogs, right, And so it seems like you could almost use this to argue

that categories in general are the same across possible world. Does that make sense? Yeah? I think that when atheists evolutionary materialists type people deny any kind of actually existing classes of things, that this would amount to some form of denying some kind of law of identity. Right, I think? So is that what you're saying? Yep, that's exactly No. I think I think you'd absolutely absolutely make that argument. I think, you know, and other

arguments similar to that kind of hinge on nominalism. I mean, atheism is pretty much nine percent committed to nominalism, and I mean it's kind of a similar type of argument. It's not law of identity, but it's saying, well, there's no classes of things, there's no universals, then you're already stuck basically in eventually the destruction of knowledge as a whole. So yeah, I think you could definitely go that route. All right, sweet? Yeah,

good point, Peter. What's up? You want to make another comment? All right? Can you hear me again? Yeah? Cool? Are you still taking like geopolitical type questions today? Sure? Um, it's funny. This was This is actually something I was hanging out with my former priest's son, who's like moderately red pills you could say, like on the scale of one to ten, like one being the least tending the most, he's

like a six or seven. And he was asking me, like, from the perspective of like, you know, Klaus and company, why bugs? Like why you know, why would why? Specifically? I mean I get and he gets like why you know meat would be banned? You know,

like the rationale from their perspective, but why but like why bugs? So one solution to that is that a lot of these celebrities and weirdos uh have already put a lot of money into the bug food companies, So there's a gaming the market kind of racket involved in this um and then more speculatively, I think we could say it's also kind of like a middle finger to the to the working classes and to the poor that you know, you know,

it's like it's like a temple of doom when they get to the Indian village and right, and and they're like they're trying to give Willie Scott a bunch of plate of bugs, and it's like, uh, it's rubbing your face in that kind of thing. Okay, Yeah, because I knew about um, you know, all the big time like celebrity investments and things like like beyond meat impossible meat that wasn't But those are more like you know, soy you know, plant seed oil slop as opposed to like from an actual insect.

Yeah, and I mean there could be also you know, the Carson Carson carstogen carcinogen effect, right, definitely, which could relate to other more malicious nefarious motives. Yeah, okay, cool, thanks, Yeah, a good question. Uh, let's see, let's find somebody who has not come on yet today by the boy tech. What's up dude? You just hit mute? Hello? Hello, here are good? Yeah, what's up? Hey? Jay gould to speak to you for the first time. Actually just

downloaded Twitter to uh ask you this this question. All right, here we go. So, um, yeah, I know whoops that allotted to better? Um. So I know that us as Christians with the fallowed to morality by going to God. You know, he's the one that claims for morality. But when I'm talking to my more secular agnostics and atheist friends, there's a difficulty to see good versus evil. So it might be a little bit of a broad broad question. But like what's is there any way, uh

that you explain, like how we can clearly see good versus evil? Like I have some radical ways, but they're they're a little bit like like obvious obvious examples, like that'd be crazy if they agree to it. But like, is there any uh discourses or explanations that you give to like why we can pretty much be starting for good and evil in the world or what do you, uh, what's your explanation on that? How do you see it? I mean, good seems to me to be the most fundamental presubpositional category

necessary, right, the good. If there's no such thing as the good, then really all value judgments are impossible, they don't mean anything. So there's got to be some kind of objective good in a philosophical sense, not just to have ethics, but to make truth claims. I mean to say that one thing is true versus not true, or versus the false, necessarily relates to the good because it means there's a sort of an assumption there that

we ought to choose the true versus the false. So I mean the good like the true, These are such fundamentally absolutely necessary, not just ethical but epistemological and metaphysical categories that again, all meaningful communication and human predication would be impossible, and I say impossible in the sense of being coherent, being meaningful,

being justified if there was no such thing as the good. I mean that to me is that that's like a super very awesome way to put it, because yeah, everything goes back to like, hey, let's find truth, let's find something that's actually practical. Well, I mean, think about all science. All science is predicated on the search for verifiable correct theories and data versus unverifiable false data. That's the true versus the false. That's choosing

the right one versus the wrong one. So you can't actually separate science from value judgments as much as they think that they can. That is, that's a fantastic way to explain it. I love it. I'm gonna take a note on it. And I have a second last question for you. Okay, So I come from a polygamist Mormon background, right, and I disagree obviously I disagree with their polygamist discussions, but you know they usually default to like, oh, well, David and Solomon had a bunch of concubine so

why can't I, as a man of God also have them? How do you respond to these things, because like I mean, polygamy, polygamy doesn't I mean, first of all, like, yeah, you gotta be a good man, which many men aren't. And this was David and Solomon, Like what's your explanation? But yeah, I think that in the Old Old Testament period, God tolerated a lot of things in terms of morals and ethics that he eventually wanted to kind of pedagogically gradually lead people to not do anymore.

So, you know, slavery, you know the sort of barbaric things that we see that are into at times tolerated. You know that many of the Church fathers argue that that was really God sort of gradually drawing man back to the calling that is more like what we see in Genesis. And so Jesus's law that he lays down is the restorative Eden law. Right, So he's basically saying, let's let's go back to this. This is going to be the norm for the church because that's what I originally had intended for Adam

and even the gardens. So the church is the new Eden. It's the restored Eden, so to speak. And that's why, you know, you have things that are tolerated but are not the ideal situation. So it's true. I mean there's other things too that you know, we're tolerated in the Old Testament period, like slavery that we don't typically think are normative for the

New Testament period. Yeah, it did, um, you know, not condoning it, but it did make sense back then because it was a completely brutal, animalistic world where death or survival, right, so like, and everybody didn't know how to read, most people, so it was more it wasn't like how movies make it seem. It was more like servants, you know, you did what the master said, right, Yeah, obviously that's

a from in a more uneducated world. So that's how you you know, used for pedagogically started progressing to a more civilized state, right, exactly, correct? All right, all right, I goes analogous to polygamy. Like David and Solomon, they had concubines, you know, got allowed it, but he's not promoting it to to all these horny men you know that are

just making a mess out of out of families out here. Yeah. I mean again, there's other institutions in the ancient world like that, like the slave trade, that you know, couldn't immediately be completely revolutionized, right, and so I think that that's why there's a gradual pedagogical uh leading of men to a higher calling so to speak. Eve Monarca, what's up? Hello? Yep, Yeah, So I had all I wanted to talk about the Muslims worshiping the same God a home with Catholic Yeah, so how would you

all them differ? So in Acts seventeen, when Paul says that on one of their altars they they worship God would held on them. They worship God even though they don't know about him, Right, that doesn't prove that doesn't prove natural theology, though in the Roman Catholic sense, because Paul says that in one sense you know the true God, but in another sense you don't know him. So the statue that he's pointing to is the one that they

don't know. And the irony is that you're that's the one that's the true God, the one that you don't know. So it's actually an argument against natural theology. And you'll notice in that chapter Paul doesn't say anything like what a Roman Catholic proponent of natural theology would do. He doesn't say, look, we all have a common idea of God, we all believe in one ultimate source. We all believe in the teleological argument, the cosmological argument.

There's nothing in that chapter or in Romans One at all like the way that Roman Catholics go about doing. They're so called natural theological apologetic. Paul preaches the resurrection and he says, the word Jesus is near your hearts. The word is near your hearts. How is that That's not possible? In Roman Caloic natural theology, the logos, the word Jesus is not near anybody's hearts in the Roman Catholic system. In fact, the Roman Catholic system doesn't believe

in the heart the noose. The Orthodox system does believe in the heart or the noos. It's a specifically Orthodox doctrine. So everything in that passage is completely Orthodox and absolutely not Roman Calviic natural theology. You win the statement one. It says that the Muslims worship what do we worship? Do we worship an absolutely simple Unitarian thing? Or do we worship the Trinity? Who is God? Yeah? No, I'm asking you who is it? Okay?

Right, so it is not. So let's say, between Basil and Eunomius, do they worship the same God? I don't know that much about church history. Okay. So Eunomius is a radical Unitarian Rian. Do they worship the same God according to Basil? I don't know. I don't know what Basil said about that. Okay, So he wrote a famous book against the Eunomians. So no, the Kappadocians fight their whole life against Eunomians. Yeah,

okay. Eunomianism is pretty similar to Islam. Okay. So would we argue that Basil and Unomius believe in the same God because they both believe in monotheism of course not. Yea ergo between a Mouslim and an Orthodox person. There's no common God. I'm taking the perspective from Paul says like, this God whom you worship without knowing is the one I'm telling you about. And they were polytheists. You know they had crazy gods? Did you? Did

you not hear what I said? He's saying, the one that you don't know is the true God. You don't know him. Yeah, but it says they worshiped him. They have a statue to an unknown God. And the Pagans did this just in case. Doesn't mean that they know God. They do not have a saving knowledge of God. It's like Paul, for polytheist even says that they worship the one God that we um that Paul worship. Do you not hear what I said? No, I see what you're

saying. You did about him? They like, why about him? That? What's the name of the God of the Old Testament? No? In the passages with the statute the unknown God? Okay? So is he know no? Okay, so then they don't worship the same god is Paul. Yeah, but paulse is saying that they worship him without knowing. So it's like their knowledge is faulty, just like in Islam, but they still worship him. So again, yeah, you could say in a sense they do.

In a sense they don't. But the point of the passage is that you don't know the true God, but he's near you, even in your hearts. And you're saying that um vaticant who makes it out to be like they do know all they do? Don't do know? Vatican two says the Muslims together with us worship the One True God. Yeah, they don't. That's different from what Paul saying when he says you worship this God. I mean, I've just illustrated this to you with Basil and the Eunomians. Yeah,

did you not understand it? I understand it because you don't know they're lying about they don't know him, lying about his name. It's not look so in one sense there's a knowledge, in another sense there's not. Right, So if I if I say uh, if I say, um, let's say somebody doesn't know me, but they've heard about me, right, or they know that there's a guy on the internet who makes these arguments, right, and they might know a few things about me, Right, does

that mean that they know me. No, No, I'm awesome. I'm not arguing that they know they know God, because it's true, they're really far from that, you know. But um, it's equivalenting, well, how do you worship something you don't know? I mean, Paul said that they were worshiping something that they don't know. You know, again, you don't understand that. It's a use of irony, right, So he's saying that you have a statue to an unknown God, and he's saying, ironically,

that's the one I'm telling you is the true God. Yeah, yeah, I know. No, you don't because you're not listening to what I said. So you're basically telling me that you know me as and Basil worship the same God. I'm I don't know about that specifically. You don't understand the analogy to what I'm to to this. Yeah, yeah, I'm I see what you're saying, because they have a completely different idea of God that they're appealing to. Okay, so some commonalities don't equate to same referent right,

So let's take monotheism. For un orthodox Christian, monotheism refers to the Trinity. Okay, for a Muslim Monotheism is exclusive and not trinitarian. So the fact that they both have the same referent Monotheism does not equate to in any way the same God or the same reference because there's some overlap because they're mutually exclusive categories and systems. Does that make sense? I agree that it's not like um, the knowledge of God isn't there. But I'm just trying

to draw a parallel. You know, where it to you worship him without knowing in Acts seventeen. Yeah, and you're saying that they do know him. The point of the passage is that you don't know him. Yeah, but also says that they worshiped him. That I mean, but they worship what they don't know. So you keep saying this point it doesn't matter. That doesn't equate to Orthodox and Muslims having the same God. Do you not see why? No? I understand that there's like, in one way they

worship him, but in another way they're completely wrong. And I don't think that Vatican too says anywhere that they know all about him or that they're fine because Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God at all. Because of you understand, you're you're making a mistake because you think that because there's some

overlap, it's the same reference when it doesn't matter. If we if we had if a Muslim believed in nine out of ten attributes of God that we do, and one of those attributes is that God has triune, that's enough to make it mutually exclusive. They're not the same. So how would you differ on that from the Greeks having, you know, hundreds of gods and Paul saying that they worship him as this God that he's trying to tell them

about. It doesn't matter whether it's polytheism or unitarianism. But Paul uses the claim that they have like mutual worship. You worship him, I worship you know. It's not it doesn't matter. It's not acceptable worship, right, Yeah, And so Vaticanto doesn't say true worship. It just says now, actually it does. It says that Hindus also love God. Yeah, but they don't say it's true. It says Hindus love God. It says that

Hindus have a an acceptance with God based on their Hindu faith. It says that in nostratt Yeah, and you just keep saying yeah and no, they don't. There's only Hinduism isn't too far from what the Greeks were doing. And this is correct. All said to the Greeks that they were worshiping him. But you don't know about him. You can't worship what you don't know. The point of the passage is that you're blinded, and its irony.

You don't understand that. You just keep going back to the word worship, as if that means that they know him and they worship the same God as us. They don't know why. No, I don't think that they know him. I think then the worship doesn't do anything. That's the point. Yeah, I mean you could say, like the worship, I don't know how God sees their worship and what sends it at all. But but we do know that because of the example that I gave with the Unitarians. It

doesn't matter whether it's monotheism or polytheism. It doesn't matter because the only acceptable worship is of the trying God. You can't worship. Listen, let me give an ex illustration of what I'm trying to say. If I say I believe in one God and you say I also believe in one God and let's say your God is the Trinity, My god is the one God that is Satan. We both worship one god. Do we then worship the same god?

Obviously? Not? There you go. And so now you're just gonna say, I see what you're saying, then repeat your same point for the twenty time. I won't repeat it anymore because, um, I mean, you pretty explain explain you, you know, explain your position. So if I did it. So let's say let's say you're the god that has the one God that's Satan, okay, and I'm the one God that's the Trinity. And we're having a dialogue, and I say, I'm going to illustrate

to you in your theism that your system is dumb. And I say, this one god that you call Satan, that is Jesus, not Satan, and you worship him without knowing him. What you're grasping after for Satan is actually fulfilled in Christ. That is what Paul's doing to the to the polytheists. Okay, do you see you are grasping for Jesus because you want an ultimate power. As a Satanist, even though it's worshiping Satan, you're ultimately

grasping for Jesus without knowing it. You don't know Jesus. That is what Paul's doing. He's not saying that we all worship the same God because there's common terms. All of natural theology is built on the word concept fallacy that because there's common terms, we all worship the same reference. It's a very simple silly mistake. Yeah, I would just distinguished worshiped from belief and whatever. It doesn't matter saving worship knowledge. It doesn't matter. Man, whatever

I'm I'm getting frustrated, apologize. I'm not mad at you. It's just like can be will not understand this, It's not that hard. Let's give an easier example. A Mormon says, I believe in Jesus, I believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe the same thing as you Orthodox Trinitarian, No, you don't. Just because you have the same words does not mean the reference is the same. It's no different than the mistake when people say the Old Testament God is Eloheim. The Canaanites said,

l Therefore the Old Testament God is a Canaanite God. This is a really simple silly mistake. It's a grammatical mistake. Word concept fallacy word referent The same word can refer to different things. Likewise, in theology, you can't have seven of God's attributes and throw out three of them right and say it's the same reference. This is not that difficult people, Can you understand?

Okay, let's say that there's Let's say that there's ten key attributes of God just for the sake of argument, and all of those attributes are necessary such that I can't deny one of the divine attributes and still have the same God a reference. For example, I believe in all of God's attributes, but not omnisciance. Okay, if you deny omniscians, then it's no longer the same God. It doesn't matter that you have nine of the ten attributes.

Okay, it doesn't matter. There's no scale of Well, I got ninety percent of God's attributes, so I have a ninety percent God. Do you see how dumb this is. It's a system, mutually exclusive system such that the system of Islam that is unitarian does not overlap with the system of Orthodox trinitarianism. They're mutually exclusive systems. It doesn't matter that there are overlaps. Will you believe in God's omniscience trinitarian. I believe in God's omniscience as a

Muslim. Therefore it's the same God. No, it isn't anymore than Basil's Trinitarian God is the same God as Eunomius, as unitarian God, which also uses the words father, son, and spirit. Guys, this is very simple. All of natural theology is built on this. How can you not see that this is a problem. This is silly. It does not matter if there's the same words. What matters is the referent, not the words.

Don't you think that when we translate the Bible into some other language, is it suddenly a different God because it's a different word, of course, not the Aluit word for trinity. It doesn't matter what that word is, because it's the reference that matters. As a Trinitarian, when I reference the Trinity with the word t r I and I t y, it's the same

thing that the Alouette when he says uga whatever is referencing the Trinity. The words can change the reference, doesn't It's simple grammatical stuff, And so many people imagine the stupid bait and switch that the Roman Catholic system is built on. This bait and switch in Vatican too and nostraate. And by the way, that guy's like, no, it doesn't say that, doesn't say yes, it does say that. Let's get Vatican too out. Let's see what

it says. Does the Roman Catholic Church believe with Hindus that Hindus worship and love the same God that we do. Yes, and the Muslims yes Nostraate Paragraphs two and three. The Church has reverence for the Muslims. They worship quote capital G God. This is the basis of Roman Catholic natural theology, an ecumanism with the Muslims clear as day us your interpretation. This is supposed to be the interpretation. Do we need an interpretation of the interpretation of the

interpretation. The Church has a high regard for Muslims. No, it doesn't. Muslims are a horrible Antichrist system that persecutes the Church. The Muslims worship the one True God capital G. No, they don't, because the one true God is Father's Son and Spirit. There is no generic Unitarian God. And all of you Roman Catholics are lying to yourselves when you act like you don't have to accept this. When you're poet creates a giant three building Abu

Dhabi faith center to the monotheistic God. That's not the Trinity. It's all in your face. So stop lying to yourself. The Muslims worshiped the same God that Abraham worshiped, No they don't. Abraham worshiped the triad. And as it says right here, Hindus approach God in love and faith. No they don't. Hinduism is a horrible demonic system and it does not allow you

to approach God in love and faith. Stop lying to yourselves about you the very actions of your papacy for the last sixty years, seventy years, tell you what your church believes about these religions. All right, we got a huge stock of people here, newo logion. I'm mute, all right, moving on? Hey, hey, yep, hey, thank you. Uh sorry, I was struggling too a mute there. Hey, So, um, I want to first of all, thank you for what you just said,

because actually I was part of what I wanted to cover. I read no strat recently. I've just been making my way through the documents that you suggest people to read, like Sadi's called Nidum Vatican one, no straw I feel like what happens is a lot of a lot of Catholics just don't read the course of the magisterium that they defend. Absolutely, yeah, tell me about it, um so. Yeah. But what I wanted to talk to you about is I wanted to ask your opinion on some thoughts I had.

I listened to actually re listened to Lofton and Aiken's talk on theistic evolution and how how it's basically like a totally legitimate opinion uh in within Catholicism and it's magisterially I guess rubber stamped or yeah, jumani generis or whatever by Pisah exactly, and there's a lot more than just humani generis to the Aiken was bringing up stuff I had never heard about. So I was what I mean, it's already, by the way, is you know, verified by them,

and they're proud of it. Yeah. I mean, this is the undoing of uh Romans five and Romans eight, because Romans eight's very clear that all death, decay, and corruption entered as a result of Adam Sin. All of those people posit that there is death or to the fall about him, by the way, that's condemned in the in the cannons of the Sixth Council,

So they actually are condemned by the Sixth Council. Yes, And they always just resort to, like there was a part where Aikin says, I think within my lifetime there should be some kind of clarification and resolution, and they're they're always resorting to like some future time when some future statement of some future pope is going to make everything clear and it's all going to make sense

despite Yeah, because they worship being completely irresolvable. They're not like and not things you could just have a pope write something about and suddenly it's all going to make sense. Yeah, I mean the whole religion is the worship of authority and faith in uh, you know, the papacy fixing things or doing something better in the future, and it's it's all a man worship. And yeah, Jimmy Aikin, by the way, we played the clips a while

back, he's like defending, Oh, Nestorius actually wasn't a heretic. Yeah, well so Jimmy Aikin's a heretic, so avoid heretics. So that's all

I say stuff from them. Yeah, but specifically what I wanted to ask your comments about is Uh there's a point where he mentions Dave Verbum, which I have not read, but I think you're probably familiar with it, and he brings up a point about Dave Verbum where, Uh, what's what's taught in that document about the interpretation of scripture is that the author's assumptions don't need uh well, okay, the way he phrases it is that what's inspired are

the author's assertions and not his assumptions. So when Peter is writing about the flood and he's assuming that it was a global flood, that isn't necessarily inspired, but his assertion or the symbolic um, the symbolic value of the statement he's making is the inspired part. And I'm just I mean, that's that's actually it. But in my mind, this just completely destroys exegises completely.

Absolutely. If you're if you're gonna read the Old Testament in that way, you're just you're just going to be I mean, the things that the author assumes are part of tradition obviously, so you're you're completely cutting down half half or more of tradition. That really anyway, I just wanted to hear what you have to say on that on Dave Averbum specifically in that uh exegetical methodology, because this is actually right. I'm glad you said that, great point,

loved it. This is actually one of the things that modernists propose, the modernists of the late eighteen hundreds early nineteen hundreds in the Roman Calgary Church, we're proposing just precisely these kinds of splits and divisions, and so that allowance for the modernist exegesis based on higher critical studies, that's actually completely undermining

of the whole position of Biblical theology, absolutely one percent. And the irony is that those kinds of modernist positions were already condemned in Lamentabili and in Pious the tense documents, right, So Pious the Tense Pachendi condemns these types of

presupositions of the modernists, and Lamentabili has a specific section. Uh. There's also the Syllabus of Errors that has a specific sections on um errors in terms of interpretation of scripture, and so it might not use the explicit we're wording of Dave Verban, but obviously what Dave Dave Verban's is saying, which is about it an two document right about inspiration interpretation of scripture? Right, obviously it is saying that you can't divorce these two things. I mean, it

would lead to all kinds of absurdity. And by the way, how could you This is like deconstructionism or something like, how do you divorce Peter's worldview from what he's writing? This is crazy and and there's no there's nothing that tells you, by the way, where the delineating line is, so, like, what what is it? Where's the line between Peter's theological errors, because that's what it would amount to, theological cosmological errors and the exact writing

of his texts. Right, And by the way, where does this come from? What church father ever said? That there's a division between the potentially erroneous presuppositions that Peter has of his worldview versus what he actually wrote down. It's all just invented. And this again, this is why all of these people, all the Roman Catholics, all the people that you hear that they don't even they can't think through these things because they're deluded. This is what

delusion does. It's a strong delusion, and they don't even see that this totally undermines what Romans eight says about the cosmology of the universe. Paul says in Romans eight that all death, all decay, all corruption is a result of Adam and Eves and prior to that Satan, Satan's fall, in an Abnea's fall, you can't have millions of years of death before Adam's fall. It does it undoes the cosmological scope of christ redemption. And that's why these

heretics don't believe in recapitulation. Every one of these people, as a heretic, could denies recapitulation because you can't believe in recapitulation without what I'm saying, without the idea that Adam and Eve brought all forms of deathca corruption. They don't understand that the cosmic scope of the fall is the presupposition of the cosmic scope of Christ's incarnation and redemption. It's not simple, and that's why their

heretics. Yeah, and they do the exact same thing with even papal documents, like when it comes to the issue of fatal communion. The ones that like who actually have read Quam SINGULARI know that Pious the tenth called not giving not communing children a new practice. He literally uses those words, and they'll

just straight up deny that he's right about that. He'll they'll they'll just be like, well, the historical part of his cyclical isn't infallible, but the right I mean, it's just constantly making these arbitrary distinctions, and it's like, all right, on what basis? I mean, these people have not read Sidi's Cognitum, because if they did, then they'd know, like the whole encyclical binds your conscience. Yea, whether it's a cathedral or ordinary magic

hereim, it doesn't matter. You can't just deny that what what a pope is saying about a historical truth is right is not true. Yeah, um, well, thank you, Jay. I also want to mention that I read M. Paul Williams book Operation Glad You. I recently finished it on your recommendation. I thought it was fantastic. Yeah, thanks man, really great comments. Awesome, thank you so much. No LOGI on great comments.

Yeah, there you go. Track cat honest with himself, sees where it leads, saw the conclusions and realize the track cats don't read their own documents. If they did, they would see those Alexander Harris. What's up by the way before we go to Alexander, hold on, if your second, if you would for a second, pavl cocheck cochick check a chick. One dollar. Let's see who the first victim was, brad counter five dollars.

Can you talk about the rosary in its history? So the rosary is not something that I would advocate for um it's it's usually pretty bound up with Roman Catholic doctrine of imaginative prayer, and we don't do that in Orthodoxy. I'm sorry, it's not part of the Orthodox tradition. And the Western right people that want to import the Rosary, I think it's a bad idea, So we don't want it in there. You don't need it. Bowie three eight three three eight, Thank you for all your work. Thank you so

much, Bowie. Cute little Gandolf That's what I'm talking about. Hot sexy little gandolfs. Can you share your critique of John Locke and classical liberalism. I have many podcasts that I've done critiques of classical liberalism. You can go back to the old podcast with Tim Kelly. You can do that. You can look at the critique I did of Jordan Peterson from six years ago.

I've done that so many times. It's just sort of like, how many times you have to do it. I feel like you blame liberalism for everything. You hear me blame liberalism. I don't know what do you mean by liberalism classical liberalism? I don't know what you mean. Do I blame liberalism for everything? I don't typically do that. I blame the fall for for

everything, not liberal quote liberalism. We drifted away from decentralized government. Yeah, I mean, this is just the narrative that you believe from the Enlightenment propagandists who have told you that you know, Adam Smith and David Ricardo and John Locke and all these goobers are sort of like the final word, and you understand that those people work for British East India Company and private corporations who became the next enslavers and the next tyrants. So you just believe a myth

of the Enlightenment. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, and I'm happy to debate any libertarian. In fact, I think we did. I debated the first debate ever did was cocash, and the first half of the debate was theism. And then the second half was I think classical liberalism. I've asked all kinds of classical liberals to come and do debates, and they just typically won't do it. Now, we did do that debate with Robert Taylor, like five or six years ago. We did two or three debates with him.

Actually, Dave Smith. I tried to get Dave Smith to do a debate. He wouldn't do it, or just didn't see my tweets or something or whatever. I don't know. I'm not dissing him. I'm just saying that any libertarian wants to come to a debate, it's open floor. Reach out to me. I'm very easy to get a hold of on Twitter. Majority in twenty dollars On the question of existence of grace outside the church, how do we define grace outside the church versus divine providence? Again, at the

last twom, I think it's either thirteen or fifteen. A maximist talks about the mode of the spirit's presence outside the church. So again, if there's no grace outside the church, we would never come to the church. Of course, there's grace. Grace, Paul says, the word is near you even in your hearts to the Pagans. That does not mean they're saved. So divine providence is a grace, yes, But the Holy Spirit worked on Cornelius's heart before he was in the church. There's nothing wrong with that.

Doesn't mean that they're saved as pagans. Not saying that. Does it mean that the Roman Catholics have the eu Christ either, not saying that. Justinian's right ten dollars. I got into a discussion and debate with the guy at work. He brought up salvation and said he believed in solifide. I said, you are in a Baptist sect that is based on dialectical philosophy and not

historic Christianity. Is that a good bait tactic or move? Yeah? I mean if that's a fact, and if you know your buddies enough with the guy that you can, you know, just sort of lay it out that bluntly, then yeah, I think that's a great move. Why not? I mean, isn't that a fact? If he's a Baptist, dude, then Baptists, you know, date from basically the Radical Reformation. Where were the Baptists in the year of seven hundred? Where were the Baptists at the

Council of Nicia. They weren't there because they didn't exist. Elevate xxx ten dollars. What's your opinion on John MacArthur. I don't have a lot of positive things to say about any quasi Calvinist self appointed Bible teacher, so I think John MacArthur is a heretic. Kevin Farrell ten dollars. Watch this video when you're done. It will freak you out, and then you have a link. Maybe I'll check it out, but then again, who knows what you've sent, so I don't know if I want to check it out.

Christen five dollars. Great job deflecting on that guy's neuro linguistic programming. We hate to see you get hypnotized on stream. Yeah, that's halfway a joke when I talk about the like, I know that the people calling in and saying my name over and over and over are not actually doing NLP. But that actually is an NLP technique, right, You people do to do a lot of like politicians go and study how to do NLP and they learn all this nonsense. So I'm halfway joking, but I just think it's dumb when

people are like Jay Jay. Look, look bro Jay Jay Jay, Look Jay Jack, I'm like, what why are you repeating my name? Like I'm the We're the only two people here. There's no other possible person that you like you're talking to me. You don't have to keep saying my name. I'm here, dude. Oh look at that Junior Gallows since two hundred dollars, he's winning the super chat competition today. Thank you so much. It's a massive stream killing super Chat. Thank you so much. Roll Steaks

ten dollars. Spent a long time since we've seen some of these classic names. Good to see you guys there. Thank you for the string killing it as usual. I love all the six Sticky note maxing. Keep us in your viewers and your prayers. We'll keep me in your prayers. I need your prayers. Riga nine, thank you so much. Fake in Gray five dollars, Thank you so much. Who's up next? That would be me? Hey man, how's it going, soub dude? So I just tuned

into the stream and then came over here to Twitter. At the end of your discussion about Vatican Two's basically all religions are approximating the same God and then talking more specifically about to being worship the same God as the Muslims and the Jews, and so I wouldn't at all agree with the vatic into kind of language. And I don't come from it in the sense of trying to justify any kind of Catholic document, but I do. I am of the opinion

that at least the Jews and the Muslims worship the same God. And I know you don't think that, but I want to at least state my case and and see if you can try and dissuade me. Okay, I will let you state your case, but let's rewind real collect so before we do that, though, do you profess to be some sort of Christian? No, No, I'm not Orthodox, and so well hold on. And do you profess to be some Christians in reality and faith? No? So are

you agnosis? I don't have baptism, I don't have chrismation. Sorry, are you agnostic? Well I don't understand. No, No, Ideologically I agree with Orthodox Christianity. Yeah, and so God willing hold on, I'll

be Orthodox, Okay, I mean it's just not the reality yet. Okay, fair enough, so go ahead, um so, And one of the big things that I think I use this reference for justifying at least I'm gonna argue the Jewish case, and then by extension, if Jewish radical Unitarianism as it's known today could be Um could be also the same God that we worshiped, and I think it would extend to Islam. But we can we can

argue that that release And I'll just talk about the Jewish case. In Saint Justin Martyr's writings in his first Apology, he talks about how God appeared to Moses and is explaining to the Caesar that the Jews have a confusion between the Father and the Son when the Angel of the Lord appears at the burning bush.

And I think the way that Justin Martyr couches this in context is that the Jewish God, even in this conception, is a close stuff approximation to say that their confusion is classified as heresy but not idolatry, and heresy being an approximation of the correct referent that that does not fit every characteristic necessary for it to be Orthodox, but not lacking enough qualities to be referring to some other subject, some other God, or some other delusion. Yeah, but

hold on, So an orthodox go ahead, An Orthodox theology. I understand where you're going with that, but Orthodox theology. Ultimately, this doesn't really matter because if you look at John Damascus's uh heresiology, how does he classify all the heresies or excuse me, how does he classify all the world religions I don't know as heresies? So ultimately this doesn't really matter. Okay.

So you would say that that, according to that heresie, idolatry are essentially the same thing, and that there isn't really a distinction there Ultimately, yes, okay. So would the implications of that be that all Catholics, even though they profess the Creed because they use the Philioquay, would be idolatris and heretics absolutely okay, No, cool, that just clarifies your position. Um, oh could you no? I guess okay, if you can cite Saint

John Damascus, right, that's given me a lot. Yeah. So if you look at the I mean, what does Saint Gregor Palamas say in the Treatise on the Appodicted Treatise on the Holy Spirit. He says that the Roman Catholics have listened to Satan in their heresy on the Philioquay, and they've confused nature in person and that thus that's lead that leads them to their doctor and have created grace. Absolutely, But to say that's the same thing as worshiping a different god, it is, and he's no hold on. So in

orthodox listen and orthodox theology, heresy is ideolotry. It's a delusion of worshiping a conceptual thing that is not the correct reference. Now that doesn't mean that everybody, everybody that has anything wrong is automatically a damned heretic. Heresy is a specific sin. You're correct to say. It is a specific sin of willful error and persisting in that error. So that's why we don't call everybody

necessarily a heretic per se. But John Damascus can also basically classify all of the world religions all the way back to the original idolatry in Genesis when Man fell. He says that all of the pagan religions basically derive as a heresy from the original worship of the Trinity in the garden. Okay, well, that was really helpful about distinguishing the willful push systems apart, because I think maybe that addresses the other objection that I was going to bring which was that.

I mean, for for every layman in the Orthodox Church to assume that they have a perfect understanding of the trendy whenever they worship is like a little much to ask. Yeah. And also I don't have a problem saying that. You know, Justin Martyr, even though he's a saint, you know, they can get things wrong and they can have sometimes have bad arguments. A lot of the apologists of that period. In fact, his disciple,

I think Tatian right, Tatian became the total heretic. So just because Justin Martyr made this or that argument or whoever, like individual church fathers can make, you know, bad arguments, sou, I don't have a problem saying it out. Well, that's a bad argument. So well, thank you Jay. Yeah, good questions, Togo. Well, I might to remind you guys, if you had a head over to chalk dot com. At

choq dot com, you get access to the best supplements out there. You can get a hold of the Sheila jet, which is great for mental focusing clarity, to use the promo goo J fifty that's Joy five zero to get fifty percent off all of those excellent products. You can get the Action two point zero, which is excellent in terms of action boosting your energy levels. You can get my favorite, which is the tonkat Allee one percent proven a

boost testosterone. Heading over there to chalk dot com Thehoq dot com. You use the Romco J fifty to get fifty percent off all of those excellent products. Read the papers and their views and see. If you don't think that I'm right, you're gonna see everybody loves it. Um. Also, I would say, if you want to get recurring subscriptions, use the promo goo J five three Life. That's J five three. If you want to see us live, We'll be doing a live event in Hollywood at Van Nuys Airport.

That's a there's a giant hangar. Basically it's not the airport, but we'll be doing an event with Jamie Kennedy. It's gonna be a lot of fun. It's a mix of the absurd with philosophy with real information. Expose's great stuff. There's the tickets. Sign up now, don't wait, go ahead and get your tickets now. It's not worth waiting until the last minute. Um, what's it's winding down on that? So I get your tickets. Also, if you want to sign up for the Orthodox Italy Pilgrimage.

We're gonna be doing a full on pilgrimage in Italy. You can go to my website and you're under every post you'll see the links for the for the show or seeing me for the for the pilgrimage. What's up, man? Go ahead? Hello? You hear me? Yep? Okay, sorry, um, I just have a question about bro. You're going into the Haunted House the basement. You're going into the basement of the hunted House. What's up, man? That's fine, it's fine, go ahead. I can't

hear you, dude, you're you're you're roboting, man. Try to come out and come back in. By the way, somebody said we could see all your contacts on your phone. You're not seeing the contacts, dude. You're seeing the people that are in line in the quay to come on. You're not seeing contacts, secret information. Good spoozing? Uh, I don't know. Let's do let's do one more. Is there anybody who wants to bring on some disagreements Stephen Young? This looks like somebody who wants to debate.

Let's see. Hell yeah, what's up? Hey? Man? Um? So I'm a Catholic. Um, it's like a kind of a recent convert and I just had a couple of questions. So I've been considering Orthodoxy now for just like a couple of months, and my biggest concern is about the divine Simpleton view versus the essence entergy is distinction, And Catholics keep telling me to look at Scotism as if it's some kind of like a compromise.

Could you tell me more about that? Yeah? So, I mean the issue what they're misunderstanding is that the issue of can you mute, dude, please meet bro? Mute? Oh yeah, So the issue is not merely a matter of the status of the distinctions between the attributes, right, So the idea that this is only a question of the relationship of God in his simplicity to the multiplicity of attributes is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of this

issue. It's also an issue that relates directly to Christology, because the Energy's doctrine, if you read John Damascus in book three, is immediately applied to Christology. Two wills and two energies, and the energies in Christ in his incarnate state are necessary to understand the multiplicity of His actions as incarnate. You see. So it's not just a matter of distinctions in trinity or God proper. It's also crucial to understanding the reality of Christ incarnate in his two Wills

and two energies. The essence energy distinction is specified and hammered out, not ultimately in Trinitarian theology, but in Christology, and Roman Calitic theology is deficient also in Christology. Now that's not because they don't give verbal credence to the Sixth Council. They do, but they don't really understand that theology of the Sixth Council, nor is it really relevant to their system as a whole. And the reason for that is that they if it was, they would understand

that the six Council is not just about speculations of energies. It's about how we participate in God. You cannot have a real, coherent doctrine of transubstantiation or of the real presence without the energies. Ephesus and Saint Cyril make clear as day that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the uncreated energies plural, that's what you partake of. So Roman Catholic theology has dogmatized that what you partake of in grace is a supernatural accident in the soul, a created

accident in the soul. Supernatural created accident in the soul. That is impossible with Orthodox theology. It's impossible with the Eucharist. Cyril says in the Two Letters to sixth Senses that what we partake of in the Eucharist is the uncreated glory that the Logos transmitted to his human nature. Because what you partake of in the Eucharist is the deified flesh of Christ, deified by the uncreated energies.

You can't be deified by creation. So they've missed that. The essence, even in the Palomite debates, is not about theoretical distinctions or the theology proper of the Trinity. It's about participating in the Logos, participating in uncreated energy. Scodism doesn't solve, that doesn't answer, that doesn't deal with that. Palamas is very clear in the debate with barlium assume of acodynos and barlium, the dialogue with the Barlammite that the key issue is about participating. If

you don't have the uncreated energies doctrine distinct from the essence. You don't have a doctrine of participation that makes any sense. Are you eating the divine essence when you eat the Eucharist Roman Catholics, it's already defined. A ephicis what you're eating Allah Cyril the uncreated immortal glories. And Cyril says that is not the essence, that means essence, energy distinction Roman Catholics. But you don't

read those things. You don't read Cyril, you don't read emphasis, you don't read what's in the sixth Council, and so you don't even know that what I'm telling you is fundamental to all of these things. So it doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if a Roman Caloic theologian said, I believe in a real distinction between the divine attributes. It's not a matter of do you have room for a school of philosophy within Roman Catholicism's umbrella that allows for believing

in real distinctions and attributes. It doesn't matter. It's not a theoretical question. It's an actual praxis question about what we participate in, and that has to be uncreated energy, and that's already defined and so Rome has already departed from this doctrine by dogmatizing that the grace that we get is a supernatural creature. That's heresy. All right, thank you guys, a lot of fun today. We're gonna call it a day. Everybody, have a good evening

and a lot of fun today. We only had like one or I think we only had one troll, right, we didn't. We didn't hit our two troll limit that we expected, but that's okay.