The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the don the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the do the budding to the bodd All right, what's up? Welcome to a discussion that I think is timely given a lot of the Internet drama and debates and discussions which you might think would be about theology, history, geopolitics,
a relationship between church and state. But unfortunately it turns out no, most of the discussion really has nothing to do with that, and so I thought it would be very timely to delve into this subject and get into the history of the question of the role of church and state, how they relate to one another. Is there a superior relationship between one to the other, is one above the other? Does authority derive from one to the other,
Or perhaps they are completely unrelated, independent spheres. Perhaps the state is some sort of Satanic entity in itself, as some believe. In what sense is Jesus quote unquote the king when people refer to Christ the king, and what about the historic confessions between Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, how would they treated this question? Is there commonality between anybody Orthodox and Catholics? Is there commonality
between Protestants and Orthodox at all? What about cesero Papism or Erascianism. So tonight we're gonna get into that. It's just too ripe of a topic not to discuss, given that everyone's talking about it. And the thing that surprised me I tried to get into Lauren Chen's space. She did a space where she was inviting people to come discuss the topic. I assumed this meant the theological, historical, biblical history view of this church fathers patristic view. No,
had nothing to do with that. It was only about whether or not this phrase can be said and is it anti anti Shemitic? Right, So I didn't really have anything to do with the question of what is the correct teaching, but rather censorship and the phrase. And I don't fault anybody for pointing out the freedom of speech and the ability to say this and to fight
against people that want this kind of speech shut down. But it's like you know so much of what happens in today's Twitter sphere, public sphere, debate
debates sphere, there's never any context. People don't know what the history of the topics are, they don't know the debates, they don't know the correct view theologically speaking, and so it just ends up being these sort of scream squabbles where people want to say names back and forth and don't have any theological grounding or historical background to understand what Protestants have believed, Have they evolved?
What Roman Catholics I believe have they evolved? And what's the classic Orthodox teaching, which as we know, is ossified set in stone. It's so boring. They don't change, they don't evolve. It's like they're so so just ossified. They don't even evolve or whatever are They just stay, which is precisely what we want. Coffee with Sister j which is the opposite of other
coffees with people who want to evolve the doctrines. Now tonight we're gonna be talking about some topics that are gonna be really difficult for a lot of people. Protestants are gonna have a hard time tonight. Uh. People said, I haven't looked at your channel in a while. Now you look like Curtis Jarvin. That's funny because there might be a little overlap with Curtis Yarvin type of views tonight. As everybody always points out, it's going to be at
a little difficult for Protestants and even perhaps for some Roman Catholics. However, I will say this from the outset, most traditional minded Roman Catholics and traditional minded Orthodox and a few scant groups amongst classical Protestants do have kind of common ground here. We do typically agree that there is a social teaching of the church and a teaching of the state. Does the church have any official teaching on the role of the state, its limits, its boundaries, its domains,
its rights. Or perhaps we're supposed to be libertarian, Maybe we're supposed to be against the state. Maybe we're supposed to be anarcho pacifist hippie. Jesus followers being Jesus was like cool dude or whatever. Men. He always he always says, he'll take take a stone out of your own eye before you throw it at the other people or whatever, and like, you know, just love people and be cool, man. That's like what he said.
He was like a homeless hippie or whatever, really homeless hippie. So these are the people, of course, that have no idea that Jesus is the second person of the God, had no idea of all the Messianic prophecies all throughout the Old Testament about the conversion of nations and states. Yes you heard me right, nation states, nations and states kingdoms in the Messianic era.
Why oh oh, you hadn't thought about that, had you? Even though it's central to everybody's apologetic who has any kind of Christianity to argue that Jesus fulfills all these Messianic prophecies and that the Church is the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the gentiles converting in the Psalms, in Genesis and Isaiah and Ezekiel and Amayah. And what about all those multitudes of passages which describe kings and queens coming and submitting to the Messiah. How do we know when to
allegorize? How do we know when it's figurative? How do we know when it might be saying there really really will be kings and queens converting? What about Daniel seven nine, Revelation five there's a lot of parallels in those passages.
Well, it turns out the way that we interpret a lot of the historical contexts of these passages, whether we're partial preterists or not, will also play a role in how we understand the application of these passages and this doctrine to the history of the Church. Because, as you can probably figure out, many evangelicals, many premillennialists, many dispensationalists, will take so many of the things that are actually applicable to here and now in the Church era,
the kingdom era, and postponent delay it throw it off into the end times in some judaizing heresy of a thousand year kingdom on Earth where there's a new temple. So we want to have to we're gonna we're gonna have to tie in some of that, and we're gonna talk about somebody's asking me about so I'm sorry, I can't tell if that's a trolling joke there and the guy that asked the question there super chat so hard. I'm sorry to tell you this the but I'm I'll have to deal with this. I can't find the
tweet because I'm logged out of Twitter right now. On on the computer. But Michael says, for five dollars, did you hear about Putin opening the old vaults? So fourteen hundreds is not the oldest vaults. Okay, maybe in Russia. But the biblical figures in that cast cavalcade of images that a lot of brothers on Twitter are sharing, Okay, first of all, they're not all black. Some of them are old and old icons turned black. It doesn't mean that people were black. Jesus was not black. He's a
Hebrew. And the other pictures, about half of them are Saint Moses the Black. Totally different, dude, and everybody knows this, so I'm not sure to be mean to you, Michael, but this is just total nonsense, total low iq idiocy, and people just need to have no historical back
of grounding or foundation at all. And there's literally like tens of thousands, maybe millions of people sharing this stupid tweet, and these stupid tiktoks that literally think that Jesus is Moses the Black and that this is some sort of stupid cover up, just literal I mean, this is what now, you guys understand why it's so annoying when I go on TikTok to debate, and people
want more of it because just because they find it entertaining. But I mean, it's really difficult to deal with super hard headed, totally arrogant, delusional people. And this is the kind of stuff that feeds into the Hebrew Israelite heresy. So you're absolutely right that the insanity of these Hebrew Israelite people. They use this kind of nonsense as if Moses the Black is Jesus. And what's funny is that the examples that they're putting up up there's literally Greek lettering
on the icon that tells you who it is. But they don't even know that the Greek lettering it says Moses the Black, it says Athenacious. Okay, it's not Jesus. So I hate to be a ball buster bearer of bad news for all of the We was Kying's TikTok Bros. But shout out to Yakub. Michael says, for a dollar, I was just copy and pasting the tweet of my brain dead friend. Yeah, I thought you were
joking there. I figured that was a joke. But yeah, no, Moses the Black is not Jesus, and Jesus was not actually from Ethiopia. I don't even know what the We're going to have to do an investigation into the Hebrew visualized because just like it's just being promoted everywhere, it's probably got some kind of fed promotion and it's probably gonna lead to all kinds of madness and it's completely insane. I mean, it's just like the most ridiculous stuff
all right now. As you can imagine, every Orthodox person knows that Christ is king because we have calltless icons showing him as the king. This of course is the prophet, Priest and King icon. And this is my favorite
icon. We have it downstairs here at this house, the icon wall, because it shows us that threefold office as a fulfillment of all the things that the Old test says the Messiah would be so one of the common Three of the common themes throughout the multitudes of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament include the idea that Jesus would be a prophet. He would be the greatest of the
prophets. The Messiah will be the greatest of the prophets. He will preach to the nations, preach righteousness, preach against idolatry, preach against all of the degeneracy of the pagan nations. He will also predict the future, which is part of the office of a prophet. Prophets don't just predict the future, they also are preachers. He would also be a priest in that he would fulfill the role of Milkisa Dek because, of course, the original type
of Christ's priesthood is not the levitical priesthood or the ironic priesthood. It's the Melchizedekian priesthood. That does not mean that the levitical ironic priesthood is not also a type of Christ, but as Paul argues in Hebrews seven, it's actually pre eminent above the levitical because it comes before and Abraham, from whom the levitical priesthood derives its lineage. As Paul says, Aaron was in the loins of his father, Abraham paid tribute by that to very fact, by default
to the greater when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek early on in Genesis. And so Malkisa Dek is an actual historical figure. He's not an unknown semi divine person. As a lot of idiotic people come out with these weird theories has nothing
to do with the Mormon idea of the Melchizedekian priesthood. No, christ priesthood is according to Psalm one ten, he is forever eternally a priest after the order of Malkisa deck and that refers to his second person of the Godhead status as well as the intention to become man and to be this high priestly high priest role. And so it is Christ that is the Melchizidekian priest and the ironic levitical priesthood also is a type of and is fulfilled in Christ, as
Hebrews seven itself argues. So you see, Hebrews actually argues that both are have their reference point in their telos in Christ. Both are fulfilled in Christ, but the Milkizidekian is superior. And so in that sense we could say that how could there be gentile priests as the prophecies of the Old Testament predict the end of Isaiah, how is that even possible? How could there be
an altar in Egypt? As we read where do we read that recently in one of the livestreams that we did as Isaiah nineteen, How's there an alter in Egypt? Can only be a priest in Jerusalem and at the Temple. How could there be gentile priests are going to be alter in It's not possible.
Well, it's possible because of the Messianic prophecies about the Covenant being opened up to the Gentiles and the superseding of the Ira priesthood by the Melchizedekian priesthood, which is the type of Christ. So christ priesthood, which is the Orthodox Church, is the priesthood spread throughout all the nations, the one true, Holy, Catholic and Apisolic Church. Everybody can go and see and learn and verify that. That is the Church of the first thousand years. So
that's the church that's spread throughout the Roman Empire, converted the nations. The Orthodox Church today is the only church that continues to believe the same identical dogmatic teachings of the Church of the first thousand years. Therefore, the Orthodox Church is the identically same Church of the first millennium. And thus the fulfillment of all of those Messianic prophecies and the prophecies about the gentile nations converting and coming
into the Church. And I would add to that as I will argue throughout this discussion tonight, only the Orthodox Church still retains the classic teaching of symphonia, or that Christ is also king in the civil sphere. And this is the whole history of Byzantium history of the idea of the monarch as the icon
of God in the sense of ruling on earth through divine justice. We see this in Romans thirteen, where even a pagan emperor, according to Paul and Romas thirteen, even Nero, who was completely wicked, can still in a sense be an image of divine providence and divine justice. Paul accords to the Roman Empire, to the Roman imperium, to Caesar the ability to exercise the
sword, and that's nothing new. In fact, the same principle had been seen in the Book of Daniel when providentially Nevchaneezer is recognized as the existing authority. So even though he's pagan, he can still have a recognized providential authority. Now he has limits. He's not able to tell you to worship the statues of him, nor can Caesar tell you to stop worshiping Christ and worship him, and yet he still has the state authority. That's the attitude of
Romans thirteen. Remember it's not in either or of total statism, nor is an attitude of no state at all. You see how Roman's thirteen has a balanced view that also has to be read in light of the rest of scripture. We see again an example of Daniel, a providential role for Nebuchaneezer, where God does allow him to rule and his empire is even spoken of in the early chapters of Daniel in that way that God's providence brought it about.
We see the similar situation with Darius, well Cyrus, and Darius actually Cyrus has called the Great Shepherd. He becomes a type of Christ in the latter chapters of Isaiah, and he allows the temple to be rebuilt as well. I think that's right. Yeah, the decree goes forth, I think from Cyrus. Ezras says so. So the point here is that prophet, priest, and king are a triplicity, a trifled office that Christ fulfills, and they all go together. So there's no Christ is King without the other two.
So I don't at all disagree with the correct phraseology of Christ is King. No, I just have two concerns. One concern is that a lot of the twitter spamming of it really has nothing to do with Christ in the sense in the Orthodox view. In other words, it needs to be the Orthodox view first, and that means that Christ first hass to reign in here,
and we're all failing at that. And what happens a lot of times is a lot of people want to replace the inner repentance side of this with well, I'll just do a bunch of external tweeting, projecting, a bunch of external owning, owning the libs with it. I'm gonna tweet it out to make everybody mad, and it has no reference to your actual life. And so they turn it into a performative act and that's not what it is. It's not a performative act. It's not a performance. It's not a
thing to own the libs. And so a lot of the piety signalers there are correct in this point. Who we're saying this quite all? So everything on Twitter is so ridiculous. Can you either get these either ores right? So you get a bunch of people saying Christ is king, we should be able to say it, and we're gonna own everybody with it. That's annoying because okay, but are you applying this in reality, do you actually believe in the threefold office of Christ or do you actually think that this is just
a base political thing. And that's the super annoying part of this which is wrong. Okay, you can't isolate one of these threefold offices to the exclusion of the other two and make this some sort of performative act where Christ is king to own the Libs. Because if you don't have the right theology go with this, I mean, it's all going to fail anyways, gonna be
ridiculous. So we need the right theology. And the other thing too, is that the political application of it is really the lowest tier of importance. So it has to start with you. Then it moves to your local relationships, and then it moves out from that to the family, to you know, state, nation, et cetera. That's the model of permeation, the
model of permeation. That's the way it's supposed to happen. Even if there have been situations in history where king converted and then his whole nation state converted, that's not the norm, especially not nowadays. That's not how it's going to happen now. So the way it's gonna happen nowadays because we don't really live in a Christian society. We don't live certainly don't live in Orthodox society. We live in pretty much a pagan society. And how was Rome converted?
Was it converted because they for three that the church for three centuries kept trying to get the emperor or convert and then enforce it top down. No, No, it took many, many centuries of martyrs. That's what converted the Roman Empire. So it began with the zealand devotion in an individual sense to the Orthodox faith, by the way, not to some crazy Protestant thing or some online e faith which doesn't exist. It's not a real thing.
And then it spills out to people around you. And so if you can't, as our friend Father Moses often makes the point like, if you don't get along with your family, if you don't love your family and your friends, and you don't, you know, live a moral Christian life, you have no business fussing and everybody on the internet and projecting and sassin everybody about Christ as king, because it's just you're just being a hypocrite, right,
And it's also not a thing for these annoying media pundas to chime in on. I'm not talking about anything in particular. I'm not talking about Flints or anybody like that. I'm talking about some of them, the more neo con element which has to chime in on this, which are super annoying. I'm talking about them, and they use it as this way to piety signal, right, and they'll be like, oh, you say Christ is king, but are you praying on Twitter? Is what they mean. Right, So
there is a political application. There is a public application of these things. However, it's not the No, it's not like we go public political number one and priority number two family and then number three is church and individual. It's the other way around. Starts with the individual. And that doesn't mean that you can't be a politician or applying these things in the realm of the political. It means that if you're doing that, then you have to,
more than anyone else, have the hierarchy of importance there first. Does that make sense? That's the key thing here, because remember Roman Empire doesn't convert by a bunch of people, you know, spamming on scrolls, you know, Christus Rex and if you put up enough Christmas scrolls and graffiti throughout the Roman Empire. Then oh, then Caesar will convert and then he'll make everybody
be Christian. I mean some of these people have this completely idiotic views about No, what you want is genuine conversions at the local individual level first, and then that will permeate the rest of society. Then when there's a majority Orthodox society, which we're way off from that, then when that happens, then it's a lot more. It's more appropriate to speak of the possibility of a Christian state. You can't have a Christian state without a sizable majority of
the population wanting that. So that means they also can't be adherence to some ridiculous heterodox idea of Christ as King. And I'm not talking about Roman Catholics. I'm talking about Protestants. So if the majority of America is Protestant and we get say, I don't know, let's say some weird thing happened, we're fifty percent of the Protestant this would never happen, but the Protestants agree
Christ is King. How are you actually going to organize a coherent model of church state inter relationship symphonia with a bunch of lunatic Protestants, but never, it's never gonna work. And as we go through the history of the relationship between church and state in Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessions, we'll actually see some of that. So thank you guys for tuning in, h like and share if you would. We got a nice seven hundred here tonight.
What is your parer life? Like? Hey, why do you feel the need to ask me about my prayer life in a on an internet chat? So look, if you don't, if you don't like, nobody's making you stay here, you don't have to be here. You can get out of here. And the point of this is not like I almost never talk about piety issues, especially not on the internet. And as you get older, you're gonna get annoyed with this too. You're gonna get annoyed with all the
piety stuff and all the self righteousness on Twitter and the Internet. But that doesn't mean that there's not don't run from what child are you been talking about? Come debate. We're not here to debate the Qur'an. Dude, I've done. I've literally debated all of the all of the Muslims. So I'm not gonna come debate you with However, many hundred subscribers go, So you're just wasting our time, all right, So what's the theological teaching? What
is the theological teacher? Do we actually talk about that? Now Here? People are questioning how come you won't talk about JQ. So I've explained this
a million times. Certain topics. Everybody knows you can't discuss those things on YouTube, and I talk about hotter racier topics over on my rock fin So if you'd follow my Tragy and Hope lectures, if you follow my recent lectures that I do live, and if you followed the recent lecture that I did on Israel and Palestine, you'll know that I got into some diceier topics.
And so the question always comes up, how come you're not fully on board supporting every person out there pushing because you have it you guys have it backwards. And this is what I've been trying to say for a long time. So it's not gonna work to do this model of pressing the issue on without the right theology. And I know you do think you think it doesn't matter.
You think you know all that matters is if you can own libs and get the Amish question, right right, that's the only thing that matters. But the AMI's question isn't gonna save you, The honest question isn't gonna heal you. So well, so what's the priority? And do you even want to hear what the actual teachings are? I mean, let me give you an example. So let's say we're gonna let's say we're gonna push the Amish
question, and that's what we're gonna obsess over. We're gonna talk about it all day long, and we're gonna convert people to trad Catholicism or to Francis's Catholicism. Do you understand that Francis literally goes and worships in Amish synagogues? And I hope you're you know what I'm saying. You're not too stupid, right, So Francis is the solution. You see how this is silly.
It makes absolutely no sense. So if you want to call in and remember to keep it according to TOS, so nobody gains anything by just you know, going against TOS and getting banned. It doesn't do anything. And I've been at this for a long time. I know, I guarantee you, I know a lot more about all this stuff than you do. Man. So you know, if you want to call in and have a debate or something like that, we can do it. And you guys always say why don't you do this? And I do it, but you guys never go
and pay attention to the stuff that I do. So so what's the point? Why why are you even here? What's the point is this? Guy? Jay Dyer? I am so all right? But see, you guys don't actually care about the history of theology. You just want to shout on Twitter. It's like nobody even cares about what the real issue is or what the actual teachings are, So just go shout somewhere else. Man, what
what do you want from me? I mean, if you don't want the actual history of the actual theology, I don't know what I mean because that's what we always cover. So what do you think? So you think it's gonna you're going to solve all this with a bunch of online shouting and well you're going to make a common cause with a bunch of Protestants to do this. Really you think that's going to work? Thank you guys though, for
the super chat. I appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, look, I focus on what my wheelhouse is, and my wheelhouse is the topics that I cover. So the one of the reasons I don't focus on the political is that as you get older, and as you you know, when you're in your twenties, you're very politically minded, you think you're gonna do a lot with politics, and then as you get older, you realize how I don't mean to be black pilled here, so don't misunderstand what I'm saying.
I think politics is very limited what you can really do in politics, and you can do a lot at the local level, but you know, national politics and everybody getting so wrapped up and it's just it's really doesn't do anything. And after you get into your thirties and forties and you live through a lot of these elections and you've seen all this nonsense, you're gonna feel the same way. So you'll learn that what I'm saying is true as you get
older. So does that mean that you can't be a politician and apply your classic principles. Now there's people who do this, and I support I think it's great that people do that. I just don't think that on a national level it's really, I mean presidential politics kind of a circus. So anyway, a lot of people live in these sort of fantasy worlds. They want to larp and pretend that and it's the same. By the way, I don't have a problem critiquing Orthodox people too. They do the same thing where
they we're going to set up an Orthodox business union part of America. We're not anywhere near that. Okay, we need like seventy eighty percent of population converted Orthodoxy before that would even be like on the table. Okay, But there's nothing wrong with talking about the church's teaching on the role of church and state. And that's what we're talking about tonight. What is the theological teaching
of Orthodox Catholic and Protestant. So let's look at that, because again, you know, as you guys know, Orthodox theology is taught by the icons. You can always look to canonical iconography to get the basics of our theology. But let's go with the Protestants first. Let's step over here to the
Protestant world. Even though you might think, well, why wouldn't you start with orthox Roman Catholic, Well, in America, I think it's still the case that where's my Protestant pictures, I'll pull them up here we go. I think it's still the case that the majority of religious adherents in America, I think are Protestant. I think that's right. So we'll start with that, just because in America that's the predominant view, right. I mean,
America starts as and inment nation with a lot of Protestant influence. It's true there are a few Catholics there. There's the Carol family that's there, so there is a bit of a Catholic history of America. But there was also a lot of Episcopalians, Baptists, Deists, Masons. Right, there's an odd cavalcade of characters who kind of go into the spirit of America, the
Founding Fathers and so forth. And so there's a strong Puritan and Protestant ethos there, especially with the Puritan work ethic, the whole idea of you know,
predestination manifesting itself in worldly blessings. Right, So if you're part of the elect, if you're a city on a hill, as many the Puritans said, even prior to you know, seventeen seventy six or whatever, prior to that, you've got the idea already in some of the Puritans that the New Israel has kind of equated to the American experiment of people like Cotton Mathers and these characters, right, And so you get this idea of setting up
a type of theocracy through the Puritans, and the Puritans are getting that out of a loose kind of dominion theology that Calvin had. And so I know all about this. I used to be a pretty committed Calvinist dominionist, and dominion theology just refers to a lot of people get obsessed over this. They think it's something ridiculous, and at times it is ridiculous, but it just means that the dominion mandate of Genesis still applies to be fruitful and multiply,
and it certainly it does. But of course, in the Orthodox view, that's fulfilled in the Church. The Church is who truly has the dominion mandate. And while it's also the case that the state should operate under Christian principles, that's not the first priority of the Christian to convert the state. We convert us families, cultures, tribes, and then the state follows kind of the last you could say in that in that exercise, So the Protestants.
Though, what's interesting is that if we go back to the early reformers, we want to talk about Luther, Calvin AND's wingli here. Uh not many people know that when the present Reformation kicks off, this was not solely motivated by a desire to fight the papacy. Certainly, uh there were uh, you know, theological obsessions that Luther had over certain doctrines like solo fida.
And you know, he begins by questioning in the nine five PCs things like purgatory and indulgences and temporal remission of sins and all this kind of stuff. And if the pope has the power to, you know, dispense plenary indulgences, why why does any free everybody from purgator? So Luther asked a lot of these, uh legitimate theological questions, and it progresses into more fundamental theological questions. Luther becomes more and more hardcore Augustinian, as you guys know,
becomes more predestinarian. He writes his book Bondage of the Will, where he essentially denies free will. But what not many people know is that Luther had tremendous support from the German princes and so the state, the German state, and these princes were really tired of the pope and they were a big part of the motivation and support behind Luther. And we can see kind of similar things with other Protestant reformers as well. Everybody kind of knows that, you
know, the creation of the Church of England is Henry the Eighth. He Hear the Eighth is kind of annoyed at the papal situation with divorce and not
granting him, you know, what he wants with his ladies. He wants a male heir and he's having these issues and so Pope angers him and he I'm going to create the church being and that becomes in part a looting exercise, where the Church of England essentially is this new entity that then loots a lot of the Roman Catholic areas, monasteries, and it undergoes a kind of revolution that at times is sometimes called low Church Anglicanism, and there's also High
Church Anglicanism, so you can get something kind of a variation there where low Church Anglican is almost perhaps even Congregationalists kind of puritan type of government, maybe even something akin to we cann't say full on. Many of them are Calvinists, but we can't say they're full on Presbyterian because Anglican kind of necessitates episcopal
church governance in the recognition of the king. Many Presbyterians who are strict followers of Luther, of course, end up being Presbyterian and preferring republican government as opposed to monarchy. And as you guys probably know, in England there's actual battles between the Royalists and was the cavaliers versus the royalists or whatever. So you get these religious wars over the relationship of church and state and the structure
of not just the church but also the state. For example, in the times of the Westminster Confession, which is the sort of normative doctrine of Reformed Presbyterian theology, that's their primo confession, there were many people there very worried that there might be a concession to Erastianism, and Erascianism, if you don't know, is just Cicero papism, the idea that the king, the ruler, whoever it might be, president of the republic, even perhaps that he's
now the head of the church. And so the Westminster Confession contains within it I think if I'm going for I haven't looked at Westminster Confession in probably fifteen years, but you know, they have these guards against the king or the ruler having any authority in the church, but they still have the idea that
the state has a duty to God and it's not autonomous. In the Protestant theories, both I would say, Luther and Calvin, you could argue that there's still even this early on a kind of loose I wouldn't say theocracy. In other words, I would say Calvin is more of a proponent of theocracy, maybe even than Luther. Luther's not super concerned with the state, but he does think the state has a duty to kind of promote the basic ideas
of Christian morals, the Ten Commandments and this kind of stuff. And so ironically, even though Luther was supported by the German princes against the Pope, Calvin actually spends up being more of a theocrat than Luther does. And this is where we get Puritanism. And there's a lot of inter nicene disputes that a lot of people don't know about or even care. Nobody even cares about this, but within the Reformed and Calvinist world, there's actually debates over to
what degree Calvin was a theonomist. Theonymist just means a person believes that the Old Testament civil law teachings are in varying degree is still kind of applicable to today's society, so basically just theocracy to some degree. Now, Calvin doesn't think that the Church and the state kind of like he thinks they have spheres, and most people, i think in Church history recognize some role of spheres here until we get to the radical reformers, So until we get to the
Anabaptists. Whether you're Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, most people think, okay, there's kind of sort of loose canonical if you're Orthodox, are Catholic barriers between what the king or ruler canon can't do and what the bishops and the priests cannon can't do. So there's kind of loosely defined ideas. It is true that in the late Middle Ages and into the Middle Ages, there's it's fuzzy at times because you have at times monks who become warrior monks.
That's unheard of and forbidden in the Orthodox world, but it exists by the eleven twelfth century in the Latin West. There's a great chapter on that in this book. I highly recommend the mind Or of Papadoccus book on this period of eleven hundred to fourteen fifty three to the collapse of Byzantium. There's whole chapter on the new element of the rise of the warrior monk, and that
was actually one of the elements of the new Gregorian papacy. So they were big supporters of this because it now allowed for another type of we can say army, so to speak, on the behalf of the pope. So there have been times where there's crossing the boundaries of the bishops becoming princes that fight, and that, to be clear here is actually a violation of canon law. We'll look at that in a minute. We don't want to go there
right now, but because we're going to stand on the Protestant stuff. But all the way up until even Calvin and Luther, you have this loose idea that there's limitations spheres of authority, and even though there's violations and sort of overstepping the boundaries, most of church history has some kind of recognition of this, at least church history in the sense of when we start to get canon law because the first three centuries, even though there's canons that we have sat
the local synods, we don't yet have what we call a codified canon law because the Church is still persecuted in underground, so they're not going to be formulating, you know, really laid out theories of church and state. Now, technically speaking, Paul, Apostles and the Old Testament already kind of have taught about the role of ecclesia and state because even in the Old Testament there's clear defined roles between the king and the priest. If you didn't know,
this is already in Mosaic law. Moses in the Law writes out the book of law for kings and what their duties and boundaries are. Okay, so those principles again they're already in the Old Testament. They come out of Mosaic law. For those that don't know, the apostles, I believe are in incontinuity with those basic ideas. And hence why Paul says that you know, Caesar, he calls Caesar for those who don't know. In Romans thirteen, a diaconos a deacon, so Caesar is seen as a servant of God to
dispense divine justice. Now he might be a terrible example of that role, right, as many of the Roman emperors were. They became tyrants, they became purscars of the church. But even Paul Rum's thirteen can call Nero a
kind of Diacinos, even though he's a wicked degenerate. And I believe that Nero is the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation because in Gematria and yes, John in the Book of Revelation uses Gematria as a code to speak for who he's talking about, because he couldn't outright say I am talking about Nero as Antichrist. Nero's name in Hebrew comes out to neuron cusar, which is sixt'
six' six, So it's a key indicator. And I believe John was writing in the Day's Nero that Nero is the immediate historical beast doesn't mean that Nero is the final Antichrist. There will be some final Antichrist figure at some point. But Nero is a type of Antichrist, as were people like told of Me, as were people like Neimrod. That's how biblical typology works. It kind of repeats in patterns, so back to Protestants and Protestants and Protestanism.
Then early on what we call classical Protestant. Classical Protestism is the period of Martin Luther, John Calvin's Wingley, and a couple of the other figures like Malanchthon and uh, you know, people contemporaries of that first generation of Reformation, and then maybe some of the people even a generation after are also kind of classical Protestants, you could say, like Malanchthon or maybe even Turitan for
instance, Turretan to being a classical Calvinist theologian. So sometimes that becomes scholastic Protestantism, so that the scholastic Protestants, the Puritans, the Calvinists, uh, they develop a much more kind of fleshed out idea of what the role of church and state is. And it's typically pretty theocratic. Right. For example, Calvin has sermons on Deuteronomy where he pretty consistently says that this the
principles in the in the the in Deuteronomy still apply. Okay, so you don't have to necessarily apply every single penal sanction, but the basic idea of the application of the penal sanctions to today still applies. That's why Puritans, for example, if you've all seen the Scarlett letter and then heard about the Salem witch trade, that's why the idea was that the civil penalties for public
witchcraft and so forth still apply. And that was true in the Roalancatholic world as well, because in the Middle Ages you did have oftentimes civil penalties for things like witchcraft and so forth. Now people say, yeah, and we should punish adultery too, and all that. Now there have been civil penalties for adultery in canon law and so forth, and even in civil law in
the Middle Ages as well as skittles. But the other interesting distinction here is that in Orthodox views of this, the punishment is determined by the sphere. So for example, if someone was excommunicated from the church, it's not the role of the church to punish people. Okay, The excommunication is itself kind
of a punishment. So the church might say to you know, a ruler or a duke or somebody I don't know, maybe a duke becomes a heretic, and the Orthodox Church is, okay, you're excommunicated, and then or I don't know, some other heretic or something. It's then the state that can then determine the penalty of that in a civil sense. So that's again spheres of authority, and again between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic throughout the
Middle Ages. I tend to view this as not that different. I don't think the case it's the case that there is some difference between say the Roman Catholic people calls for crusades. We don't see anything like that really in the East. Per se, you do have battles with Muslims on the basis of you know, a Serbian kings fighting Islam. So I wouldn't go so far as to say that even all war is like wrong or bad or anything like that. I think that there is defensive, justified war and so forth.
But there is an agreement, I would say, typically between East and West on the basic ideas of things like the duty of the state to operate under Christian principles because the majority of the populations are Christian. Okay, So it's not being enforced or pushed or promulgated because of some sort of top down thing. It's because the societies are Christian majority. So when we start to see Protestantism come about and react against what I believe is an earlier papal revolution.
Part of the reason protestantm occurs, in my view, is precisely because of the Gregorian Reforms. So if you're familiar with the Gregorian Reforms, you know that in the period of the eleven hundreds you get about one hundred years where the Germanic tribes literally appoint the pope for about one hundred years. And so this, by the way, undercuts the toll the ridiculous idea that Roman Catholics
were never under any kind of ceso papism. No, it's just papalo crism, where Otto and all these other kings were basically disappointing who they wanted as
the pope to control the office of the papacy. We have a similar situation when the papacy moves to France in Avignon for seventy years, the See of Peter in France, right, and it has become such a mess that's known as the Great Western Schism, where you have three people claiming to be the pope through two anti popes who knows and it takes an ecumenical council, the Council of Constance to solve this, which is ironic because of course Roman Catholic
theology says that councils are above the pope. So when there's three rival popes, what do they do? They turn to a council. But remember popes are so above councils. So it's all a bunch of casoustrie and it's absurd, but it's based around this idea that we see in Dictatus Pope of the
Gregorian Reforms, and this is Pope Gregory the seventh. Again, there's great chapters on this, the mind or Papadocus book, and it makes essentially all these outlandish claims which don't just apply to church and state, and actually points out that the papacy, the pope is actually the quisa's hatterac He's the universe is super being. All the emperors and kings in the world submit to the Pope. They all must kiss his ring. He decides who rules in every
country in the world. His is the only name in the world. He may oppose all emperors, he determines all bishops in the world. And again, well, hopefully we all know how foreign this is to the canons of the councils. Okay, we just cover this in the debate with or in the debate review with Luigi, where we went through multiple canons, the ancient
Ken's Apostolic Canons. For example, Canon thirty four to thirty five says that no bishop can go outside of his own sea, even the first bishop cannot go outside of his own sea, and let him do all things in accord with all the rest. Okay, well, that's Soynodalism. That's not Vatican One where the pope does not need the consent of the other bishops. Okay, Canon thirty four, as we covered the other night, thirty four slash
thirty five depending on the numberings. And you'll notice that again it's the Rouma Church has never aired. All these things go together. This is a valid, absolutely correct that it's papal teaching. Every scholar that you look up that discusses dictatas pape will talk about it. As I've never seen anybody say it's not valid. So Tishynsky talks about it, Papa, Doaca's mind or if they all talk about it as valid as far as we can tell. But
this renation, this evolution here of the role of church and state. You see that this is an innovation because prior to this, the pope didn't even call the ecumenical councils. The emperor did. And if we look at the seven Ecamenical council, it speaks of the Emperor as the God ordained Emperor, the voice and pen of God. Right, all this flowery language that Luigi brought up in the live stream covering his debate with Voice of Reason. Yeah,
exactly. The Pope is the queisasaderaik. He's the one who was this my indeed, right, as Christopher Walkin says, he's the god Emperor. But no one had ever seen anything like Dictatus Pope in the first thousand years. And that shows that the doctor of the papacy is an evolution. And if that's the case, then the entire premise of what for example, Voice of Reason and Ibara argue, oh, that was always there. If this is not always there, then it wasn't always there. You say, all,
then it evolved. Okay, well it evolved, then it wasn't always there. So and I want to show you that just an example, The Canons of Chalcedon, for example, limit all clergy, and you'll notice in every one of the canons of the councils that speaks about clergy and bishops and their roles or limitations. There's never exemptions for the Bishop of Rome. So all the Roman Catholics who discussed this, they always say, well, it's
an argument from science, because they already all understood it. Okay. But so they understood that the Roman sea had total supremacy and jurisdiction, but they also enacted canons that contradict that. So the pope had to throw out the canons that he didn't like in literally every council. But they also believed in people supremacy as they enact canons they contradicted. So you see how these arguments
are spacious, absurd and contradictory from the Roman Catholics. And that's why Calcedon they love to appeal to calcul Well, it says that if your clergy you cannot be in the military or in any secular position, Well how can you not? There's no exemption for the pope. By the way, So if you can't be in the military or in any secular profession, state role, then how is it that you're the quisants haiderak and the emperor of all emperors?
How is it that every emperor in the world submits to you and you can depose them. How is it that, uh, you know, Alexander, Pope, Alexander can have his own standing armies, standing armies? Do you think that Chalcedon at all had in mind the possibility that the pope could
have standing armies? And by the way, they were so ridiculous in the time of Gregory that excuse me, Alexander, the Borgia Pope, that you would actually communicate the state the people that wouldn't fight for I mean, you talk about corruption so like it's not just a matter of a well, they were corrupt, okay, but it's not just a matter of corruption. It's a matter of what the absurd claims of dictatus Pope are. And it's not
just dictatus Poppy either. Again, we've hammered this home a million times and it just goes in one anyone air out the other. And we have to talk about this because this is the reason why the Protestants had such a overreaction against this stuff. They're both wrong in our view. In thirteen oh two,
Pope Boniface publishes famous statement called unim sanctum. And not only does unum sanctam teach that you have to be in union with the Roman See to be saved, and not just in a generic It's not like all the world religions are somehow loosely in a union. No public communion with the Roman Sea is
what this document's talking about. Because the Vatican two people will try to say, oh, well, everybody is in a kind of union with the Bishop of Rome, even the Muslims. Right, that's the Vatican too, like all the churches in every world religion is kind of loosely in union with Francis.
That's the Vatican two model of everybody being on a graded scale, concentric circles away from Rome in the center, which is ridiculous because there's canons in for seven councils that forbid you from going to as if you're a cleric, to worship in the synagogue or the churches of heretics. In every post Vatican two pope has gone and prayed in the mosque, in the synagogue and with
heretics, violating the ancient canons because they don't care what Kennon said. They don't care that it was a unanimous teaching of the early Church that you can't go and worship in a mosque towards Mecca. That's crazy and m you tell us Romancologics, what's the problem. So you mean the guy that called the office of the Pope the pope calls a crusade against Islam. But now you can build a multi faith center and pray in mosques with Muslims towards Mecca.
You don't see that as a contradiction Roman catholicsopp nopoop oop Yeah exactly. And that's why to answer the original guy's question, how are you going to make a common course with telling people that Christianity is what Francis offers when I'm signed them. Doesn't just talk about the necessity to be in community with the Romans he to be saved. It also talks about it is necessary for the state
to submit to the Pope. So people cite this document and they think, oh, this is one of those you know, Cantatae Domino Council Florence documents that says that you have to be in king of the Roman to be saved the haha, no salvation outside the church extraclaton to nolslos Okay, yeah, but it also says that you have to be in union with the Roman see to be a legitimate ruler, and the pope will decide who the ruler is, and that you have to believe in the temporal supremacy of the pope to
be saved as well. You see, now the question is does that still apply well, as we're going to see in a minute, No, the Roman calogy Church does not anymore teach the temporal supremacy dictatis pape unamsanctam view of the Roman Catholic papacy. Because are you familiar with the tiara? Did you know what the triple tiara is? Triple tiara is the threefold supremacy that the pope has, and one of those three crowns is the authority over all state
rulers. The post Vatican two popes. I think it was Paul the six took this thing off. So it's very symbolic that Paul the six, the real pope a Vatican too. John the twenty third calls it, and then Paul the six finishes it. It's very significant that he took this thing off, and to my knowledge, they've not worn it since. Right, so you could see John the twenty third looks like was the last one that had on. Maybe Paul the sixth War. Its some, but he's the one
that dispensed with it. Yeah, so here's John the twenty third wearing the triple crown, and that's been dispensed with. I don't know if they auctioned it off or so old, or if he's just sitting in the Vatican or where it is. But this is photoshopped. That's not him actually wearing it. You can tell it's photoshopped on there. But this has to do with the Vatican two teaching post dignitatis humani and post nosrotte that they no longer mandate
and stress the Christian state. In fact, Benedict and others people think Benedict was a super trapped Benedict was actually calling for the decatholicization of many European states. Now there's a million lines of cope. Well, he was doing that because they're not Christian anymore. It looks bad to call it Catholic. No, no, no, that's not why they're doing this. They're doing this because the Vatican two teaching is religious liberty, indifferentism and so forth. And
we'll see that in a minute. Because the very thing that payble encyclicals dogmatic teaching. Murari voss Lamentabilei, Syllabus of errors. Right, these all condemn religious liberty, freedom of thought, freedom of press, and so forth as heresies. Vatican two, Dignatasimani says, now, this is the true spirit of Christ is to have religious liberty. Now here's the problem, though. Religious liberty, now that's a bit of a vague term, because does that
mean that you can do whatever you want. Well, it's always been vague. And religious liberty and freedom of press, freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, those were all Protestant doctrines, their protestant Ism one oh one. The Protestant rulers and reformers made sure to stress, but they weren't consistent with it. But they made sure to stress that we are not submitting to the pope because we have freedom of worship, freedom of conscience, and we don't
have to believe it just because the Pope says it. We have to be convinced of it. Now. They weren't consistent though, because Calvin had Servetus put to death, and Michael Servitus could appeal to the same principles that Calvin was appealing to against the pope. Right, Michael Cervita said well, I'm not convinced of the Trinity. John Calvin says Michael Cervinas ought to be put
to death because he's denying the dogma the Trinity. Well, the Pope says that the Calvinists that be put to death because they're denying multiple Roman Catholic dogmas. So you see how freedom of worship, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, etcetera. In principle. Okay, they sound good, and there might be a sense in which we have those, but they're ambiguous, just as phrases. What does that mean. Does freedom of worship mean that I'm
free to erect Satanic temples and worship Satan and offer human sacrifice? Some people think so literally, right, And if you read some of the documents about it can too. It's hard to see how that doesn't also apply. Because one of the documents that came, if it's a didn't tas Humani or the one there into Gracio one or one of them talks about how there should be
no restrictions on other groups, sects and cults in society. And some people make the argument that well, this was during the Cold War and they were saying all this so that they could help convince the Soviets to let the church be free. And that's not why they were doing that. They weren't teaching religious liberty because of Soviets. Okay, give me a break. If that was the case, then they should walk it back. Now that there's no Soviet empire anymore. Did they do that? No, No, the Pope's
still call for the de christianization of the state. They still call for religious liberty, freedom of worship, and so forth. Now you said, well, what's the problem, Well, as we see here, So here's dignatatist humani. This is the Vatican two document which is about supposedly, on the basis of the dignity of the individual or the human being, he should never be compelled, never be in any way that the church or religious teacher should
never have any quote, violence connected to it. Now this is ambiguous as well, because of course the church shouldn't go out and like chop people's heads off. But the problem is that this is the very argumentation of the Protestants as to why there should be no dogmatic connection to the state. Now, they weren't consistent with that, But as the Protestant Reformation progresses, who are the other reformers that many of us know about but often forget about after Luther,
Calvin's Wingley, Malanchthon, etc. The Anabaptists. The Anabaptists, even though we don't think of them as the Reformation, they're actually a gigantic portion of the Reformation, which arguably you could say has had now more. The theology of Anabaptism, i would argue, is actually now more popular, maybe inadvertently nowadays, than the actual theology of Luther and Calvin. How's that?
Well, Anabaptist taught that. As we said, this is what's called the Radical Reformation, right, And it's very important to know about the Radical Reformation because the Reformation, again, it's not just Lutheran, Calvin and the famous guys. When you start to look at the Radical Reformation, you start realizing, hey, wait a minute, these dudes they actually sound like Baptists,
Evangelicals, Charismatics, and most of American Christianity. Now, it's true that we don't have a direct lineal descent necessarily to the Radical Reformers, right, there are some groups that exist today that still do have historical lineage to the Radical Reformers, the hutter Rights, the Amish, the Mennonites. They come from the Radical Reformers. And it's true that the Amish and Mennonites and hutter Rights are not the big group out there, right, they're small groups.
Quakers Shakers, right, I think there's like three people left of the Shakers. Literally, there's only three Shakers left from the historic Shaker community, which is like some lunatic split of Quakers. But even President you know, Richard Nixon from you know, we grew up as a Quaker, the Quaker oats guy. I think Cadbury Cadbury Chocolates in England is also a Quaker company.
So how is it then? How can I, Jay, how could you say that the Radical Reformation is really dominant today because the theology of the Radical Reformation. Let's look at some of the commonalities that Now, this is a bunch of wacky groups, right, so keep that in mind. But what are some of the commonalities amongst the wacky groups of the Radical Reformation. We'll take a look. So the Radical Reformers were like, hey, wait a minute, of course we don't like Rome, right, we don't like the
papacy. That's a big Antichrist institution. I can't get Oxford to pull up. So we're just gonna use Wikipedia just for the overall view here. We don't like the pope, but you know what, Martin Luther's got a lot of papal baggage, doesn't he know? He's got images and he thinks there's sacraments, there's baptismal regeneration, and there's luther like some traditions, and he just didn't go far enough because Luther thought that there was like dogmas and tradition.
Still, Luther didn't understand that the real Christianity is the inner light and move of the Holy Spirit. That's charismaticism. Luther didn't understand that what we need is a communal type of living. That's Thomas Munzer and communism. And Luther didn't understand that we don't need tradition, we need the Bible alone and a personal relationship with Jesus. That really doesn't have much to do with the
church at all. The church is goin optional that's Baptists and Southern Baptists, and out of Southern Baptists Campbellites, Church of Christ, non the nominational churches megachurches. The dominant type of Christianity in America. Is this quasi gnostic and
a baptist Ish radical Reformation theology. Let's look at some more commonalities. Many of the early forms of the Rackal Reformation were millennarian so Akilleism, pre millennialism, even though there was a few early church fathers who might have, as debated, might have had a pre millennial or a millennialist type of view. Doesn't matter the cost. Anthon umble One in three eighty one excludes all forms of millennialism. When the Creed says whose kingdom shall have no end? That
is intended to exclude the millennialists, the millennarians, the Achilleis. But most of the Protestants and Evangelicals in America, their dispensationalists, their pre millennialists, et cetera. So radical Reformation theology makes it comeback. What else did they
believe? Many of these groups believed in biblical literalism, others believed in quote spiritualism, and some of those groups even said that you don't need the scriptures at all, You need the direct move of the Holy Spirit, which might be manifestations of shaking, It might be manifestations of gibberish, it might be manifestations of you think God's talking to you and telling you what to do. Wait a minute, that sounds like the majority of Evangelicalism exactly, the non
Anabaptist radical reformers. These are also very important because they relate very closely to the topic today. Though most of the radical Reformers were Anabaptists, some of them were not. Munzer, for example, was involved in the German Peasants War, so even though he was a proto Communist, the Thomas Munzer Rebellion
resulted in the idea that you could fight in battles and stuff. Uh andres Karlstaw disagreed theologically with Zwingley and Luther teaching non violence and refusing infant baptism. So this is where we get Luther, by the way, who says Zwingley should be put to death and that the the Baptists and ana Baptists who wouldn't baptized children should be put to death. So keep that in mind. These
were considered death worthy disagreements at that time. And remember that because Protestants are always saying there's a loose, lowest common denominator idea of what a Protestant is. We all believe in the Bible, we all believe in baptism, used to kill each other over baptism of infants. What are you talking about and you don't there's no common It's all a bunch of lunatics. And by the by the way, just because there's some commonalities doesn't mean there's one group.
Remember how the remember the move that Bryson did the Bryson debate where you tried to play this trick. Any group, loosely speaking, that had a judaizing tendency was the group that Bryson's in communion with. That's not a single group, dude, That's a bunch of different, disconnected sex all over the place. I'm with them, I'm with Dan, that's my group. Come on,
dude. Now here's the key point with the dissenters, the English Reformation, rodic Co Reformation, the English dissenters, these people, Quakers and others, George Fox, Roger Williams. What's their key point. Well, we can understand why they might think this. They're getting persecuted by the Presbyterian theocracy of Calvin. They get persecuted by Martin Luther and his German princes get drowned because they won't baptize their infants, they get person by perscued by the Roman
Catholics, because Roman Catholics just say they're idiotic heretics. And it's not necessarily the churches they are doing. It's the German state, the theocracy of Calvin, the state, and the Catholic kings. So guess what their theology is. The Antichrist is the state. God has nothing to do with the state, because how could God be the state or have a role in the state when the state keeps persecuting us And we're the true keepers of the true flame,
We're the true Christians, the true pious people. But notice what's happening with the Christianity of these idiotic radical reformers is it's having nothing to do with history. Remember Paul Washer literally saying, Chay, I'm coming to believe the Radical Reformation the Anabaptist were correct all alone. It was a blackout Jay, the church was blacked out. Give me money for hard privasions, right, literally saying that he believes Anabaptist blackout theory. The piety signalers, of all
piety signalers, the Anabaptists persecuted by the state. And what do we get. We get Roger Williams saying that the state is anti God, the state is Antichrist. Interestingly, the Anabaptist theology of the state as against God and kind of Antichrist. This is synonymous with kind of a lot of Americanist ideas, isn't it. So for example, I have mentioned this many many times,
you guys. I won't say who, but some years ago in twenty seventeen eighteen, I met an Oca priest and we had a long exchange, a pretty heated argument, and he had the same ideas as Roger Williams that God has nothing to do with the state. It's basically an Antichrist institution. Like so you say, Roger Williams is Orthodox. This is crazy, And how contrary to the entire history of the Orthodox Church? Is this just completely
night and day? It was like the Seventh Documentical Council, the entire Businessine Empire. And my point is not to say that all of the Byzantine emperors were saints, and no, no, I'm not saying that. Obviously it fell like there was corruption, right, But the point is that how could you think that Munzer not Muonster. I'm sorry, because Mouncher fought in the Peasant War. But how could you think that George Fox and Roger Williams and
that that is what orthodox Christianity teaches. So what happens is a lot of times in America, especially priests, people are trained up and their american Ism comes first. So they're doing the same mistake, making the same move, the same mistake in my view, that people who would say Christ is King make by thinking that the political comes first and turning Christ into like a bays tried political thing. That's not what it is. That's an effect of authentic
Christianity, but it's not first and foremost. That's down the road. You see what I'm saying. If you think of it as first and foremost a political thing, as soon as you begin to fail in the political domain, now Jesus is well, he doesn't have anything to do with this. You see, you would be led to the logic of Roger Williams. And neither
of these positions is correct. Neither Roger Williams nor the idea that Jesus is like my political banner that I'm going to enact the base and trad political party stuff with. This is the very move that the Pope made erroneously a thousand years ago to turn the papacy into a geopolitical state organization. That's the mistake.
And saying that the mistake of the papacy to become a geopolitical power organization is not solved by saying that Orthodox need to be Americanists and reject the Christian state. That's the opposite error, the very error that the priests I'm talking about made. So hopefully that's clear. Hopefully go to see that, right. I think we got to abou almost nine hundred. So we got people kind of popping in and out, I guess, and we're going to open
it up for people to discuss. Now there's even when I support the show, you can do somebody super chats there. Now, there's a lot of specifics that there's not easy, you know, direct answers to in terms of these questions, Like somebody will always say, well, what is the limits of the state. There's never gonna be some like one size fits all answer to this. History is diverse. You're going to have places and times in history when the state has less power, the state has more power. My
personal view, I would like to see the state have less power. That does not make me a libertarian. Now we got to talk about libertarianism, because this is the next mistake that people make in this domain, where their assumption is that the Enlightenment was like the high point of all of civilization.
And in my view, again, I see the Enlightenment kind of like the Reformation, where you've got a reaction against papal problems, as the Reformation was, but the reaction is also a problem, right, And everybody's always falling into either words. Right, Well, if the papers is bad, then I guess the Reformers were good. Papers is bad. The Masons must be good. Or you can have two people that are bad. You can have
two wrong sides. Okay, people can't figure this out, like most people just default to thinking that somebody's right, somebody wrong, the guy bad guy, black life. You can have five people arguing something and they're all wrong obviously, right, isn't that possible? Sure? If you ever heard five pundits on a Twitter space all being idiots, all being wrong, of course, right. So just because there's extremes in the papacy in the Middle Ages
doesn't make the Reformation response automatically correct. Obviously, Perhaps both sides have right, Perhaps both sides have things wrong, but maybe not. In some cases there might be a party that has everything correct. Loosely speaking, right, It's just not an easy either or, is what I'm trying to say now in regard again to moving back to the papacy position. Because remember, as the Reformation progresses, as the Radical Reformation happens, you get these mixes.
You get, you know, Europe kind of being split Protestant, you get the years of the wars in Europe over religion, thirty years of War, etc. You get, and I read entire books on those many years ago. I've forgotten a lot of it in my history classes, but I read a whole book on thirty years War, which all fascinating and ties into all this. You've got people who reject the Anabaptist stuff and the Protestant stuff and the Catholic stuff, and they start getting into Hermeticism. So you can start
to get the rise of Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism. So I remember, there's this cauldron. You've got the atheist Enlightenment people. You've got a cauldron of interests here. It's all mixing and bubbling over and battling. And so what the Roman Church does in response, which is understandable, and I think as Orthodox we actually agree with a lot of the basics here. So if you read
this book that I'm always recommending the popes against the modern errors. A lot of the basic principles that they call out, critiquing the Protestant and Enlightenment presuppositions is all covered in this document. Sixteen papal documents from about seventeen hundred up to I think there's some Pious the eleventh in there, so it ends with some of the Pie's eleventh. So I think I read it twice, but
I read it twice, like fifteen years ago. It used to be book I would give out when I was a tradcat And the reason I give this out is that it's so clear and to the point contrasted with Vatican two. Okay, So if you want one book that really contrasts the essential contradictions between the documents of Vatican two and the pre papal teaching, it's this book right here from Ten Books, classic famous traditional Catholic publisher. Every Catholic knows who
ten Books is. So the sixteen documents here don't just call out the idea of modernism, liberalism, Freemasonry, I think is included in their humani generis or humano genus excuse me, of thee other thirteenth I think that's in there. But by the way, there's actually like ten and then're like ten incyclicals going back to the seventeen hundreds, Pope Clement calling out and rejecting Freemasonry.
The first, I think is from Pope Clement, and there's a whole series of these all the way up to again famous en cyclicals like Murari Voss of Gregory the sixteenth in eighteen thirty two, and liberalism and religious and differentism here. This is one of the earliest call outs of the what we might call the proto a humanist idea. So, even though Acumenism is not an organized movement yet, in the eighteen thirties you kind of have the predecessors to it
with things like Freemasonry, things like Protestantism. Branch theory already exists, and in the eighteen thirties the papacy was very adamant to oppose these things and call them out. Now, this is in the minds of the popes in these documents, fully expressing the universal Catholic tradition. So even though there's not a statement at the beginning of these documents that says this shows an extrica, theaters
to eatement were proclaimed as for the whole church from the Tipeter. It doesn't really have to because it's papal teaching, pressing what is the universal teaching to condemn errors, and the errors condemned are all the things that you would expect religious liberty, freedom of worship, total freedom of conscience, modernism and so
forth. And what's called indifferentism here, which is the idea connected the liberty of conscience that you can be saved in all kinds of different paths and churches and groups. Now he's not even talking about salvation and false religions. He's talking about salvation and various branches of the church and amongst schismatic groups, so branch theory. He talks about liberty of conscience, He talks about freedom of
the press. So you understand that the papacy in eighteen thirty two, going back to citing Climent the thirteen about the of heterodox books, the Holy Office, banning Masonic texts and so forth, attacking the idea that the public must submit to submit to kings and princes. So it's a monarchical text. God has established the monarchical rule. Now, this is just one of sixteen papal
documents that specifically condemn all the errors that we're talking about. Now as we get down, what is the key error that he wants to highlight towards the end of the document the separation of church and state identified by the pope here as a heresy. What is Digna taught us humani about the separation of church
and state? The de catholicizing of Christian states. This is Vatican two document for those who don't know, Tween sixty five Paul the six and of course it has been reiterated by all the posts Vatican two popes that no longer needs
to be Christian and Catholic states because it's not good for pluralism. This is why John Courtney Murray was so important at Vatican two in terms of his Jesuit theology, was that he was a big promoter as well as I think Maritane Jacques Manartaine of religious pluralism and that modern states and societies needed to adopt religious pluralism. Does does it at all sound like Maurari Voss of eighteen thirty two
and Pope Benedict Or excusing Pope Gregory the sixteenth. Does this as all sound like pluralism to you, to condemn the separation of church and state as a heresy? Yeah, if you've never read these, if you're a Roman Catholic, it's time to start reading some these, bro. So that's Mauri Voss as one example. Now keep in mind this is not a one off.
Okay, Popes against the Modern Errors has sixteen papal documents just like this, including some of the documents that are attached to Vatican One, like the Syllabus of Errors, if I recall, so, let's look at the Syllabus of Errors. Quantic Cura. Quantic Curra is the encyclical of Pope Pious the ninth of the Pope a Vatican one, and the Trads will argue that this is part of Vatican One. I'm sure Novasorto Catholics don't even care. But I
think the Trads are correct on this. I think it is intended to be part of Vatican I mean it's the pope condemning ideas that are heterodox. So I mean, surely the Pope knows right, shouldn't he know, I mean, it's the popa Vatican. One wouldn't pie us the ninth. No, let's look at some of the errors that are condemned. We're going to start down at the bottom, because it gets really spicy towards the end, errors
concerning modern liberalism. And in every one of the errors he actually mentions other papal documents to show that it's in concord with previous people teaching and his own people teaching. It is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the religion of the state to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. Condemned. There you go, right there, condemned. It has been wisely decided by law that in Catholic countries people should be able to retain their
own particular types of worship. Condemned. These are condemned propositions. You understand that. I mean, I know there's a lot of slow people in the audies, but slow boys, these are condemned. Probably he's not teaching this. This is the condemned propeetition proposition. Moreover, it is false that every civil liberty of every form worship given all and overtly of all publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever. Total freedom of thought and to the propagation of indifferentism condemned.
Total freedom of pressed. The Pope should reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and modernism condemned. Now everything that is condemned, it's the very thing that the post vaticancvabacy has done. Let's see errors concerning natural ethics, Christian ethics. Moral laws do not come from God, they're atheistic. Science and philosophy are immune to the divine authority, and the Church authority condemned. So again all these kind of relate, that kind of go together. Right, Authority is
nothing but the sum total of material forces. So authority coming from the people up. That is not a top down thing from God. Rights just exist in material facts. There's no rights in duties beyond material facts. So let's see errors about marriage. This talks about divorce. But I want to get over here to the state as the origin source of all rights is not subscribed, ascribed by any limits condemned. So you can't have statism without the role
of the divine authority of the Church. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to social order. Condemned. The civil government, even if it's run by an infidel, has a right to indirect negative power over the church. Condemned. In the case of a conflicting challenge of law between the two powers of church and state, the state prevails condemned. The state has authority to shut down and tell the church what they do. Condemned. The state can
interfere in the administration of the sacraments condemned. State can make decisions about religious seminaries condemned. The best theory of civil society is one which is completely open and free from all ecclesiastical authority. In other words, a complete separation of church and state. Condemned by the way, that's Americanism. Catholics can approve of the system of education that is without the religious Catholic faith condemned, so
state schools condemned. The civil power may prove the bishops of the church from speaking to and communicating with the Bishop of Rome. Condemned. Laity and state civil people is talking about possess the right presenting the bishops condemned. Laity can depose bishops condemned. Government can, by its own right alter the age prescribed
by the Church of the religious professional men and women. So another one about taking vowels and when you're a Christian and stepping into the fairs of the church. Anyways, on and on and on. Right, kings and princes are exempted from the Church condemned. Church must be separated from the from the state, and the state from the Church condemned. So does this sound like the same teachings Vatican two is dignetatis himane the Declaration on total religious freedom, no
independence of church and state. So the very thing condemned is the very thing said to be the teaching of the Church in Christ indignitatis himani. So this is essentially a surrendering of between Murri Voss and Lamentabili and the other sixteen papal documents up to the time of Vatican two. And here's the irony is that nobody has mentioned quas primus except a few treads, I'm sure. So as late as nineteen twenty five, get this, As late as nineteen twenty five,
the papacy instituted a feast called Christ the King. Every tried Catholic knows about Christ the King Qua's primus. And this was intended to prop up the traditional teaching that the state cannot be separate from the church, the Church can be separated from the state, that you can't make a atheistic, independent state separate from the Church if you're a Christian and a Catholic. So as late as nineteen twenty five piously eleven, that was still upholding the things that we
just saw in mariarri Voss and the lamentabili Syllabus sabers. Now Feast of Christ the King is nineteen twenty five, So it only took from nineteen twenty five to nineteen what year is nineteen sixty five, okay, twenty five to sist for forty years. So imagine we're supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Roman Caolic Church, but between nineteen twenty five and nineteen sixty five.
In nineteen twenty five, the Holy Spirit wants Christian Catholic states. But by nineteen sixty five that should be done away with, And that's not a contradiction, even though the nineteen sixty five position is called a demonic delusion and condemned. So now I know that there's a million Catholic copes for this I made all those same copes. I tried for many, many years to make this work. But if you're a Protestant, your senters, ah huh, I like it, Jay, I like what you're saying. Yeah, downward
them papers, get rid of them babies. Man, Yeah, that's w I'm done. Bat Wait a minute. As a Protestant, who are you going to look to what's your teaching? You're not in any better position. In fact, you're in a worse position because we at least agree with the basic traditional Roman Catholic teaching as Orthodox traditionally, my Orthodox that aren't just worshipers of the American Deep State or of the State Department like the EP and marching
to the tune of whatever the State Department says. I mean, they basically are a state church. They're the state church of the State Department. So how are you, as a Protestant in a better position, Because as a Protestant, you don't really have any clear way to deal with this. And if you look at the history of the Protestant nations, they were miserable failures.
I'm not talking about monetary failures, so I'm not making a Roman Catholic argument of like we've got more money and we've got more numbers, so we win. You know, the relationship between church and state in the Protestant nations failed. Why because as soon as the state became the sort of arbiter and adjudicator of the church. Because the early Protestant Reformation was Erastian or Cicero papist, there was always going to be this struggle between the two. And ultimately
you can go back to dignititus dictatus pope. That's a struggle between church and state, where the pope just says, I'm the state and the church. It's a single headed eagle, and now I'm both heads and one. But the Byzantine double headed eagle is the classic Byzantine symbol, which expresses the Orthodox view, not saying that it's always been done right, but expresses the Orthodox view of two spheres that operate in their own boundaries, that ideally work in
harmony and symphonia. Symphonia is the meaning of the Orthodox view. That's the term that signifies the meaning of the Orthodox view of church and state. Ideally, it's the idea here is that when we have a majority of Christian society, the ruler will be operating on Christian principles in his sphere. So that means that he will be able to determine punishments for evildoers. He will be able to have a role like almost like a deacon. If you remember,
in the businessing Empire, the emperor could go behind the Iconostasius. He was, he was considered a type of deacon. But he cannot tell the church what to do. He can't change the church, and emperors that tried to do that ended up excommunicated Aryan emperors, Iconic class emperors. If the Orthodox Church was run by emperors, they would have turned it into all kinds of insane heresies. Right, it would have been Rian, it would have been
Iconoclass, or even worse, who knows. So it doesn't mean that the ruler will always be faithful to his Christianity anymore than even Caesar as a diaconos in a sense of the pagan Caesars. Right, they still had a role, but they were still but they were wicked, and so it was right to defy them at times. Okay, So it's not a worship of authority if it's a worship of authority, which by the way, is what the papal system is the whole papal system is based around the worship of human authority
and historical authority. No, at times it is right to oppose authority when they go against the higher authority. So that's the principle. Even Aquinas says this right, it's wrong. It's right at times to oppose both kings and bishops when they overstep their authority. If you're, for example, you're a lay person. If the bishop comes and says, give me your house, you owe me your property, well no, he's stepping over He's not the right to do that. The bishop can't tell you to give give me give
the church your property. I own it now I'm the bishop. You must worship my authority. No, that's overstepping the boundaries. Likewise, kings can't tell the church I mandate that you worship me as Christ. And it's no longer the Trinity, it's now the Emperor is God right. The emperor can't do that. He can try to do that, but he excommunicates himself in doing that. And it is the duty and right of every Christian to oppose them. Now, it doesn't mean that we oppose them by like taking up
arms. It means that we don't submit to those rulings in situations where, you know, if the state comes and trusts to, you know, make us martyrs, we have to be martyrs. And the only time that it might be right to engage in self defense would be in situations where that's appropriate to do. Okay, if somebody breaks into my house. Let's say, a religious fanatic breaks into my house and I will kill your wife and children for allah, Okay, and he's going to go, you know, r
ape or something. My wife is I have a duty to defend my family, and in that case, there's a good chance that I could stop him from doing that, right because it's one on one or something. Now, if an entire brigade of I don't know, Saudi warriors show up at my house, like America gets abated by Saudi's or something, I don't know, and they say come outside and confess a lot, or we chop your heads off, Okay, Obviously that's not a situation where it would be appropriate to
try to engage in self defense. It's not gonna work. That would clearly be a providential call to martyrdom and not a providential call to self defense. So you see how it's not always a one size fits all, black and white answer to these types of questions, and so likewise, the relationship between church and state might not always be black and white either. There's going to be canon law, there's gonna be history, there's gonna be historical precedent,
there's gonna be a biblical theology that all plays into. Hopefully, we have wise people, wise men who can navigate these things. A wise man like Solomon is able to apply the right law and the right medicine at the right time. And so it's not a spergatron thing where there's some ethereal infinite list of the right and wrong things to do in every situation that doesn't exist. And as you get older, you're gonna learn that. You're gonna figure that
out. Stop being such a spurg. We're gonna look at a few more texts, by the way, that also point this out. And then I'm gonna open it up to Q and A. I forgot to turn the Q and A on, but they're not even I wonder if my space is still there. Let's see, I don't know what I've never known what happens if you like, forget your space or something that is still there. Let's see, right, we'll try it all right, So I don't know if anybody's going to show up or not, but noah M five dollars kind of republic
or classical liberal system of government such as American produce a virtuous society. I mean it's hard to say, Like, I think that it's possible, plausible perhaps, but you know, we don't have a whole lot of examples of classical liberalism. I mean, we've only got Enlightenment upwards, and that's not a huge number of countries. So it kind of depends on what you think the goods of a society are. So you ask me, can it produce
a virtuous society? And how is a monarchy better? Well, what we think the goods of a society are are going to partly determine how we pick out successful and non successful societies. If we think of society as only successful on the basis of monetary gain, financial security, trade, and so for, then we'll think of sort of purely temporal things. But maybe that's not
the ultimate healthy good society. Maybe a society where vices are attempted to be punished is better than a society that holds up monetary gain as the most important thing, or luxury is the most important thing. I mean, maybe not. Maybe you have some argument why it's not. I'm just saying that how we judge a society as good or bad, or virtuous or non virtuous, or more successful or less successful is based on our presuppositions about what we think
success is. Is it something purely inporral, purely monetary, or our societies that also include religious and spiritual values, perhaps they're more successful. Again, there's no self evident idea of what a successful society is. You see, how is traditional monarchy any better? Well, the entire history of the world until the Enlightenment was typically some form of monarchy, So there's something inherent to that type of government, the type of rule that humans gravitated. Why is
it really a vast conspiracy of devious people who want to enslave everybody? Or is there something natural to following virtuous, noble people. Maybe human beings follow in a hierarchy noble virtuous human beings. And a lot of the Enlightenment is based on a lot of ungrounded, unfounded assumptions and presuppositions, such as the idea that everybody is in some sort of proto equality situation. We're all kind
of sort of potentially equal. No we're not. Now. I don't mean by that that all the Enlightenment philosophers believed in egalitarianism, but I'm saying that the beginnings of nascent egalitarianism pop up at this time. You get a more radical version of this egalitarianism with the French Revolution. Liberty equality fraternity, right,
this is essentially an anti church, anti monarchy phraseology. That's the meaning of liberty, equality fraternity, and that's why they go against church and state. The rituals of a lot of the free Masonic revolutionary lodges included tearing down throne and altar, Church and state. Everything that is the double Byzantine, the double headed Byzantine Eagle. And by the way, this is a good book reflections of a Russian statesment on this very point. So come over here
next, I want to look at a few texts. I gotta spend a whole lot of time on this, but we're gonna point out again circling back to the beginning of the talk, which has to do with christ is keen. What does that mean? Was tied to the threefold office, as we said, and one of the earliest prophecies of the Messiah. It's not the only one. There's tons and tons of I mean, if you include typology, there's prophecies of the Messiah everywhere, because the typology also becomes Christological Messianic
prophecy. But in Genesis forty nine, when we have the statements to the tribes and here Judah, so the statements to Judah and Genesis forty nine, who's Judah here? Who's the one that comes from Judah? Jesus, Judah, Jesus, you are the one whom your brothers will praise. Your hand will be on the neck of your enemies. Your father's children will bow before you. Judah is a lion's wealth, the lion of the tribe of Judah. From the pray my son you have gone up, he bows down,
He lies down like a lion, as a lion. And who will arouse him? The royal scepter? The scepter, you understand, a sceptor is a royal term, will not depart from the house of Judah. Judah will be the royal lineage. So all of you goobers who think that the Bible is anti monarchy. Aren't even aware that in Genesis forty nine is predicting the Royal House of David, the Davidic Covenant. And if the Bible is anti monarchy, if the law the total anti monarchy, why does Moses right a
book of laws for kings? Now this is biblical ignorance. People just know that. Well, there's a verse that talks about Samuel says, you want a king. I don't know why I start talking to doctor phil But now it's just total biblical ignorance that thinks that. I mean, have you read the Book of Kings. I mean, like it's all about royal houses and it's like Game of Thrones. Dude, what are you talking about? The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet.
That's talking about his descent, his descendants in the House of Judah until Shiloh comes. Shiloh is Jesus, the most famous, super famous Messianic prophecy, and unto him will be the obedience of the nations. So it's gentile nations will obey Shiloh the Messiah, the descendant of David, the royal descendant of the Royal House of David. And guess what happens when Jesus comes No more
House of David because Israel's destroyed, So the scepter departs from Judah. So the first Messianic prophecy that identifies Shiloh as the one to whom the gentiles look from the House of Judah tribe of Judah, specifically identifies monarchy a royal lineage. Now, there's tons and tons of passages in Proverbs, tons of passages in the psalms that refer to kings princes. I mean, has anybody read Proverbs? I mean there's like tons of proverbs that tell you to listen to
the king, obey the king. The king speaks the words of God, so it's kingly. It talks about behaving and acting in a noble way, nobility. The Protestants, the Prosestes not read Proverbs. I mean, what you guys think that Proverbs is made up? Like, Oh, it doesn't matter, remore, it's old Testament. Oh really, then how come Peter says obey the king citing the same principles and proverbs. So Peter doesn't count. Now, well those ancient world Yeah, but so what all of this
is from the ancient world. What are you talking about? Now? Here's a huge mistake to s smake, and even some Roman Catholic Orthodox make this mistake. And the priest by the way, six years ago, seven years ago that I had a heated discussion with, he also made this mistake. Everybody thinks. I don't know why. I think it's just kind of a Protestant like default, because an Evangelical Protestant default people think this verse is about
the Second Coming, and perhaps some executes have thought it was. So do we not have any mods? We got these filthy people just talking about nasty stuff in the chat all day long. We got a spamming coomer in the chat. So are there no mods here? Do my mods not come anymore? I don't know. So let's see we need to make slow boylmo. Here we go, so slow boys now a maud is in Jibb anyway. So in the vision of the Ancient of Days famous prophecy of Daniel seven,
I watched, and thrones were put in place. The Ancient of Days was seated. His gruma's white as noosed here was pure wool. His throne was fiery flame wheels, burning fire fire stream issue before him and came before him. Thousands ministered to him. Tens of thousands too before him, the court was seated, books were open. I watched the pompous words of the beast. Its body was destroyed and given to the burning flame. So the rest
of the beasts that are dominion taken away. I watched in the visions, and behold, one like a son of Man, came with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days. Now everybody reads this, and they make the mistake of thinking that, oh, well, that's Jesus in the first part, Ancient of Days, and so this uh one in the who's ascending in the clouds like a son of Man, that's oh Jesus. Okay. So the orthodox understanding this passage is that the Ancient of Days is the Father.
But wait a minute, we can't image the Father, correct, So how is the Father imaged here? The same way that John the Book of Revelation and Ezekiel and Ezekiel one to ten images the Son. I'm talking about Revelation like one, two and three where John talks about him being having white hair and you know, seeing his glory and so forth. But this one coming on the clouds of heaven. This is the ascension. This is not
the end of the world. It's the ascension because Jesus in acts one ascend And does nobody remember in the New Testament every time Psalm one ten is cited. When Psalm one ten is cited, Evangelicals and Americanist Orthodox and confused people, how does Psalm one ten interpret How is it interpreted in the New Testament? Citations sit at my right hand, and I'll make your enemies your footstool. When was this sitting at the right hand? Is it the second Coming?
Where on earth do any of these people and you people in the audience, where do you guys get the idea that this is the second Coming? Patrick Ireland, if you have issues, you're welcome to come debate. You're saying stop fighting with the papacy. The papacy you say I should fight Muslims. The papacy is in line with the Muslims. What are you talking about? Patrick? You want to come talk about this. Francis basically is a Muslim. He goes in praising in the mosque with the Muslim worms mic.
What do you thay talking about? So it's the Father presented in the imagery of the son, because you can't image the father, and it's the incarnate one like a son of Man, ascending to him to receive what what does he receive? I watched in the night visions, and one like the son of Man came in the clouds of heaven to the ancient days. They were brought near before him, and to him was given dominion, glory, kingdom, that all people's nations and tongues should serve him. His dominions everlasting.
His kingdom is the one will not be destroyed. That's the ascension, and I'm improve it to you. Revelation five. Now the lamb, when you had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty four elders bowed down before the lamb, each having a harp and golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. That's intercession of the saints. By the way, Protestants, the saints in heaven are doing a liturgy where they're
offering the prayers of the saints as incense. They sang a new song worthy of you to take the stroll to open its seals. You were slaying. You redeemed us to go obviously talking about Jesus. Okay, Jesus being worshiped in heaven from every tribe tongue in nation. You made us kings and priests to God, we will reign on the earth. Then I looked and behold the voice of many living creatures, elders, ten thousands of ten thousands up
same language as Daniel John and John five. I mean relation five is consciously clearly pulling from Daniel seven worthy as a lamb to be worshiped. So Jesus, by the way, is worshiped by all creation, which refutes all the arians and toes witnesses singing he's a creature. You can't worship creatures, but he's given authority, power and dominion. You see that now, similar situation Revelation nineteen. So the horror, Babylon city is destroyed, it falls,
The elders say Allelujah, Praise God. There's a great sound of a voice of multitude, a god omnipotent reins. They're wearing the fine linen, the bright robes, which are the righteous acts of the saints. Then there's the marriage south of the lamb. And then we see the rider on the horse, which is not Antichrist, by the way, shows us that the rider on the white horse is the person of Christ called faithful, true in righteousness. He judges and makes war, eyes like a flame of fire, many
crowns on his head. He has the name that only he knows, clothing rube dipped in blood. His name is Word of God. Okay, clearly is Jesus. Out of his mouth goes a sharp sword with with it he says, strike, strike the nations. Okay, this is not like evangelicals think like lasers shooting out of the mouth of Jesus. Okay, it's if you read the Psalms, the preaching of the Word of God is the rod
that comes in, the sword that comes out to rule the nations. So it's the preaching of the Gospel. He treads the wine press the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. And on his Robbie has a name King of Kings and Lord of lords. So yeah, Christ is king. Obviously. There was actually, I'm not kidding, there was an evangelical in the chat at the beginning saying Jesus is not a king. We're Protestants. We believe Jesus is our savior. Have you read the New Testament. I mean,
do you think that's the only phrase use of Jesus? So people are saying, get the get the chat under control? Can you guys not Bannon? Where's yeah? Which one's the bad guy? Where's the troll? I don't see him. There's somebody banning. Yeah, I don't see the guy, So I don't know how How could he be in the chat if I don't see him? M of the live chat is slow, but I still don't see anything. I don't see any of the trolling stuff. Where is he at? Hmm? This is weird. Yeah, I banned the dude earlier,
so I don't know. I don't see how you could be back and I couldn't see him. Mister gay conservative. That's so crazy. How is it that you can't that I can't see a profile in my chat? That's wild. Let me maybe if I refresh my control screen, I can see it. Listen, we're going to open this up for questions. Okay, so thank you, slow boy, appreciate that. Now. There's a lot
more passages that we could go to. But tonight, I think we've had a good overview that you know, basically, we're at the point where to sum this up. You know, clearly Christ does have a civil social role. He is king of kings, he is lord of lords, he is the king, even when he's not recognized as that. And it's not our job first and foremost to make him politically, you know, recognized in a
completely insane pagan state. It's not going to work. That's why you have to convert the majority of the masses of the people before you can try to have a permeation of Christianity into the states and into the laws. And America is already, because of its internal contradictions as an enlightenment and kind of sort of pseudo Christian nation, it's really sort of chosen to go in the direction of atheism and enlightenment away from the Christian elements that it had. So America
had both of these elements there, it's gone in that direction. So I don't think anytime soon. I mean, again, it's possible we get some sort of like massive Orthodox revival in the next twenty years and you know, something like that. But outside of that, I just don't see the point of thinking that you'll have a top down conversion of the state. So I think we just need to focus on what we're doing, and if God grants
that, if we get a majority of people by some miracle. Remember the Roman Empire took three centuries and millions of martyrs to get to that point. So anyway, that's my take on that. Let's see or freezing. What's up? So if you want to ask a question, pose an argument, challenge, go ahead, Well, yes, sir, what's up? Hey? I had two questions, if that's that's all right, okay, all right. So you said it's not the Orthodox's job to convert the state rather
than just just to convert individuals and families. And I just wanted to know what would be the problem with or what would be a moral about a movement that sought to convert the state, or movement that wanted to enforce Orthodox Christian morals on the country through political means, because it doesn't work to enforce those things in a top down way. It's just it's not you can't do that like the you need the will or the box. He believes in free will,
We believe in the consent of the people. It's not a uh, you know, it's not a trad cat thing where we march in as crusaders, uh, you know, and force these people to become Roman Catholic or something. It's just it's just totally wrongheaded to the way that we think about it. And the Church didn't do that in the first three centuries. Did
the Church go and try to convert Nero and Caligula? First? No, okay, And my second question, I think earlier you kind of implied that society some way you run by like pagans, and that the and that the JQ as you put it, is in it's something that's not really worth talking about. And I just want to get your take on that. Like, yeah, I didn't say that though, So I said American society is pagan. I didn't say any of that. I said American society as pagan.
I said that. I didn't say it was run by pagan's. I said the people in the society are pagan. They're post Christian, and so you're not going to get convert you know, the House and the Senate to Christianity and then make them make everybody be moral in christian That's what I said. And I said that I cover the more controversial topics not on YouTube. So I said all of that, but maybe you didn't hear that, so it's open for him. If you guys want to ask a question, come on,
you can request to speak. I'll give you the mic. It's just interesting to me that nobody actually cares. So in this whole discussion of quote Christ is King, no one actually cares about the theology and the history of it. It's just a Twitter thing to talk about the Amish question. So let's see Dmitri Dimitrios. Yeah, Patrick, that's not true. Uh would
be. Patrice has a whole video on Orthodoxy's history of mission works. Just get rid of that guy, because if Patrick, if you're not going to come and discuss in the the voice shot, then just why are you just spamming all this stuff. It's waste of time. That's up. Yes, sir, oh hypothetical question. I know you don't get many of these, but you know, we keep on going back and forth on these papal decrees
and documents. What would it take for you to be like, let's say the Pope tomorrow got up and had a decree and said, listen, I'm advocating. I'm a first among equals, but I'm not unfallible. This is the Philly way the way it should be forever more original sin and it's it's nuances of the Orthodox Church is the correct way of looking at original thing? Like what would it take for you to be like okay, let's let's go
union, it's time for union, Like what would it take? Just hypothetical question, just curiosity on my part and what your thoughts would be on that. Yeah, I mean it's we don't believe that there's like a future church to be discovered. We think that the church always has its fundamental components of being one holy, Catholic and Apostolic. So the only terms of union are the Roman Sea rejoins the Orthodox Church on Orthodox terms. That's it, Okay,
just a hypotheticy. No, it's a great question. I don't mind answering that. By the way, so people in the Chat, they're asking sending the Orthodox don't do mission work, it's not true. Ubi Petris has I think a three part series right here documentary that we made. First part was the history of the Assyrian Mission. Second part is a history of Orthodox missions for from ten thousand, from one thousand to sixteen hundred. So you
can watch these surf historical documentaries there. Thank you for those questions there, Jim, next up is Sapphire? What's up? Man? So people that are asking how can I call in? It's in the show description. It's it's Twitter, It's it's calling through X. Hey, what's upping? I have a few short questions if you don't mind hold on. I forgot to put the link to the to the Twitter in here. I thought I put
it in the show description. I apologize I didn't put it in there, So let me put it in here right now for you guys, I should answer a question is yeah, go ahead? No, Wait, I can't put it in there because I don't have not loving a little creepy, but our demons the things we should be concerned about in our day to day life.
Yeah, but we don't have to like get superstitious about it. I mean typically typically a good spiritual father will kind of, you know, coach you and guide you into not going getting losing your you know, losing your
sanity or your or your peace. Uh, kind of worrying about demons too much, I understand, But like, what are some like I mean, I know you have videos on this topic, but what would you recommend if someone's like concerned about the fact that is existently doing something or I'm thinking, Well, a lot of people in the Orthodox Church even still like the Spiritual Combat Book by Luigi's Scipoli. I think that's a book that a lot of
Orthodox people like. There's also the book it's like a three it's a if you really want like a big long thing. There's a three part series called Treatment of Spiritual Illnesses. Is a good book on that. Derek, what's up? Derek? Got it? I'm mute, Derek. Hey, I'm sorry. I know you just brought me if I just didn't. I didn't hear anything once you brought me up, so I didn't see an introduction. So I appreciate you bringing me up. And Jay trying to understand are you
a Catholic? Like I want to know because in order for me to answer the question is Christ king? It requires me to understand who's asking that question. Yeah, that's fair. I'm Orthodox, so Orthodox Christian? All right? Well, so you follow a you know, a Catholicism, correct to
agree? I mean, we call ourselves the Orthodox Catholic Church, correct, so, but we're not the Roman Catholic papal church, so we don't follow the pope and we don't have, you know, a lot of those sort of Roman Catholic trappings, but probably if you're a Protestant, you would think we're quote Catholic. Yeah, okay. So here's what I Here's the reason why I'm saying this is because I am first of all, the last thing I want to do is have confrontations or arguments or anything about any religion.
Right, Because here's the one thing I know about God is he doesn't need my defense. Right. It's not mere little me. He doesn't mean he doesn't need me defending him, and neither is Christ. So I follow very strictly Christ's words, specifically, not Peters, but Paul's no one. No one else is but doesn't hold on. So doesn't Jesus say to the apostles, he who hears you hears me. Well, that's what I'm saying. So he who hears me, here's no No, he who hears you apostles
also hears me. Exactly, Father, all of you is in me. All of you, Father, all of you isn't me. And the opposite, that's the opposite of what you just said. No, but what I'm saying is that I'm recating his high priestly parrector father. All of me is in you and all of you. I'm not talking about high priestly prayers, so that want him to have exactly what I have? Did he not say that the very first thing that you said is wrong and I'm showing you how
it's wrong by the phrase he hears you he is wrong. But it's scripture, all right, So he's not even gonna listen. So no point. Cyril Karellian, what's up? What's up? You get on you? So people say, oh, you're so mean. I multiple times explained what I said. The guy didn't care what blue past. It wasn't gonna listen. So if people don't react and interact with the point that I made after three times, I'm not being mean by moving on. So I'm so tired of
this stuff. Piety pete five dollars. If I publicly signal all about my prayer life, how many piety points do I get? Actually, I think Elon is putting into place an algorithm where it will boost you the more you post your prayers on Twitter, so a lot. So there's actually algorithmic tracking now for your piety points unknown fifteen dollars If Israel builds a third temple and sacrifices a red halfer in the Messiah does not come arrive. I don't know
what you mean by Massiah rise. I think you just mean they're asaicon. Okay. Can the world evict European descendants from Palestine? Will they accept Christ? Then? Actually, I do think there is a I think that the Patristic teaching, in line with Romans eleven, is that there is a future conversion of the Jews. And how that will happen or when that will happen, I don't know, but I do think the Bible and the Church Fathers teach that. Cyril says it, how the Nations talks about it. John
Damascus talks about the conversion of the Jews. I think Christalism too. Volunteer two ninety four. Well, the Orthodox perspective is the reason that sexuality contains a taboo scandal due to the fall of man. There is a connection between the fall and how we reproduce. But I don't think that there's anything taboo about sexuality or human sexuality itself, So that's an important distinction. Is it connected to the shame of nakedness? Probably in some way. I don't know
exactly what I mean. There's the Church fathers dispute this and the question and sort of speculate on this. How would the motive production happen in Eden? We're not told some of the church fathers speculate about that. How will it happen in the Escaton? I tend to think that there isn't reproduction in the Escaton? So anyway, what's up? Man? Karellian? Thank you for the super ship? Can you hear me? Yeah? What's up? Quick
question? I was listening to another stream. Some guy brought up a crystological question which is actually rather interesting. I wanted to get your take on it. Okay, so if if we believe that Christ's humanity was from Mary, all right, this person was asking, what about the why chromosome? Where does that come from? I'm not sure. Yeah, I thought it seems like a very simple question, but it's actually a little bit tougher. I don't think that, you know, someone could give a coaching to answer very
quickly on that. Presumably. I mean, I guess the Father just created him as as male in the same way that you know he directly creates Adam as male without you know, a prior male father. I mean, I would I'd be clined to think that because of the fact that by the time of John Damascus there's a dispute about the nature of christ humanity. It's I think his name is Julian of Hollocarnassis, and there's this idea that the humanity
of Christ is like super divine and never human. Anyway, the response to some of that is that Christ is the new Atom, and so he actually has the same humanity that Adam has in the garden. So it's pre fallen, it's a not a fallen humanity, and that would suggest that it's essentially the same type of humanity that Adam had, which was a direct male creation, would be my guess. I think that's a really good answer. Yeah, if you have another moment, just one more quick question. Sure.
I was engaging with a few guys from the LCMS a few days ago, and it's interesting there. I feel like, especially Lutheranism has been losing some of their members, particularly towards Orthodoxy. I think there's some parallels that can be drawn, but what they keep pointing to is that they're the early Church that Orthodoxy does not have a closed canon. We never had any binding canon, and that they are the only how do I say, denomination that also
does not have a closed cannon? And when you bring up well Hippo Carthage, they'll say, oh, none of those were binding because those weren't in the ecumenical councils. Right, Well, why are we supposed to accept that Lutheran about ecumenical councils. Oh no, I agree with you completely. It's it's very much picking and choosing. But it's like you're trying to nail jello to the wall, you know what I mean. They bring the argument and you're like, well, hold on, no, no, we do have
local synods and councils that are universally accepted. That's how the church worked with number one. Right. You can't just say, okay, I picked one to seven. We're not really so much sure on it. Where do we go from here? It's like, well, we start with different presuppositions. Yeah, but I think it's probably their best argument if they want to stem
the bleeding. Well, I just I mean, I would I would contend that, you know, I mean, as a Lutheran, at least a classical Lutheran has to say something like, you know, sola fide is the gospel, right, So where is there a solo fide in the first three fourth centuries of the church. If you're going to argue that the first three fourth century of the church is like a pro to Lutheran church, Okay,
where is sola fide and where sol scripture? But I mean, didn't James White already concede to Trent Horne that they weren't operating on sola scripture in the first three centuries. Yeah, I even looked into it from their end, And they start talking about things that you know, within Orthodoxy is relatively unknown, you know, condying merits and the real discussion that was between Augustine and Pelagius. Say, but none of that is sola fide though, that's not
justification about faith alone. Well, they start with that and then they grow it out too. Well, of course, you know, congruent merit is nothing right, It all has to be condine and then that means it is really grace alone because you can't perform a condying merit. Yeah, but that's
not even like it's not even a question of merit. Justification by faith alone is a nominalist idea that you can through notional faith or whatever kind of faith you want to call it be put into a legal dispositional status in front of God. Where is that in the first four centuries Nowhere? I don't even know if Luther could give a good answer, even with you, when you read his disputations with Joha and that condescend Yeah, I've read that. I've
read that debate. Yeah, yeah, not exactly a great answer. But again, you know you're gonna well, so well, that's my point though, it is like, so, wait a minute, if sola fide in that imputational dispositional legal sense is not there, and if sol scriptura is not there in the first four centuries, how is this first four centuries church in any way quote proto Lutheran. It's not you said, That's what I thought
you said. That was what their argument was. Their argument is that, I mean, that hasn't changed what they try to I think I'm just saying that that's I'm saying that, that's what my argument. My question would be to somebody who says that, somebody says, hey, the you know, first fourth century church was basically Lutheran, I'd be like, Okay, where's solid and where's the social feue. I would say, if you very selectively take certain quotes from the fathers, I think you can sort of make it
happen, especially if you really focus on Augustine and Ambrose. But from an academic standpoint, they are proto august I mean, sorry, okay, but again, Augustinians, I understand that. I understand that you can be believe in badgel, regeneration and grace alone and be Augustinian. None of that is justification by faith alone. And that's the Lutheran lynchpin of the church right right, or as he said, that's what the church stands correct. Yeah,
yeah, yeah, great question. Yeah, appreciate it. I really appreciate it. Thank you. WHOA, Suddenly we got eleven people. Where all these people come from wanting to get into it? Now? We had like two people for like an hour, and now there's eleven people. Dan, what's up, Dan, I'm trying to get through these quick. He can hear me, sir. I was having a conversation with a z I'm kind of cumuen right now. But I was having a conversation with a longtime buddy.
He's a Protestant, and I guess I'm looking for resources, I guess, but I'll just kind of tell you where this was going. But so obviously his view is, you know, it doesn't really matter which church you're part of as long as you believe in you know, Christ, you know, saving work, et cetera. I mean, just you know, the general mere Christianity. Well, I mean, what does that mean to what
Christ? Like the Mormon Christ, Joe's Witness Christ. So if he's not a Mormon or Joe's Witness, then he's national just kind of typical process. Yeah, but I'm saying, like, you start asking those kinds of questions, and he's going to start saying, well, I mean you have to be believing the deed of Christ and Trinity. And it's like, well, wait a minute, how do we know those are the two? Is that? Is that all? It is? Like, cannot be a pollinarian.
But I mean, so you say that it doesn't work to just say like lowest commonness, I would start questioning the lowest common nominator stuff. And yeah, yeah, so my question or I mean, what the question that I came out of that with because obviously now that I'm joining the Orthodox Church because I believe it is you know, the one church church, and so you have Christ the head and you have the body of Christ, right, and so would you I mean, is woul the Orthodox Church say that the Orthodox
Church is the body of Christ? Like? Okay? So, and then if I reject the body, is that I mean, is that the same as rejecting the head? Like? Are those two things? Yeah? I mean, how can you be in the body if you don't want the body of the head. So that was the answer. But so so then my question, I mean we say it every day in the creed or every basically
one holy calogi charge. Yeah, is there any do you have any resources for like or any fathers that talk about the relationship between or like the myscal union of the body and the head, or or is there anyone that sticks out to you? Well? I mean, you know, if you were to read Palmazansky's book on Orthodox dogmatics, like when he talks about Christology and
the doctrine of the Church, you'll notice they go together. So you can't have ecclesiology separated from your Christology, because the way that we do Christology defines and basically gives us our sacramatology and our ecclesiology. They go together, they're all hinging on Christology. So I would try to get your buddy into understanding correct Christology first, and that will kind of logically lead to correct sacramatology and theology. Okay, thank you, Yeah, great questions. So we've got
a whole bunch of people I would ask that. I mean, it's not a huge deal, but tonight's topic is church state. So and I'm not mad at the guy that asked the question about before it's falling out, I don't care. But if you have a church state question, because that's the topic tonight, that's really what I'd like to focus on. Ginghis Khan, what's up? You gotta unmute man? You hey, so do you think Chris is king? Yeah? Sure, that's what we're talking about tonight.
H Yeah, he's the king, Okay, just like me. Okay, what does that mean? Jasn is Okay, that's that's super funny. Dude. My hole myself back from from laughing that it was so funny. Etro, what's up dude? E t R? What's up? You gotta unmute man? Many good, big fan. And yeah, I'm I'm thinking about like converning but like orthodoxy. But one thing that's like kind of confusing to me, is like are you are people outside of the church Orthodox Church,
Like are they can they still be saved? We don't make determinations on their eternal status. All we're told is that we have to tell them to become Orthodox. So if God has a way that he can join people to the mystical body of the Orthodox Church, God can do that. He did that with let thief on the cross, So I can't judge that. But what I am told to do is to tell people who become Orthodox. Okay, so like people outside of the Orthodox Church, like are they going to Hell
or like network? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean. It's like I just that's exactly what I just answered. So what's up, Drew? You got unmute man? Oh yeah, oh yes, sir, Google.
Yeah. I was just this is this is this is somewhat not really as related per se, But you kind of got me into like like learning more about like like the I guess you said the flaws of natural theology anyway, And I was reading through John chapter one, verse three, and I noticed that like because when he says, when John says all things were made
through him and without him, nothing was made that was made? Isn't that kind of like a sort of attag like like a like a trensidental claim sort of see at least ware he's saying like a like God essentially is like the ground of like all reality. I think, so, I mean I've made that, I've argued. I've argued that if you follow through the logic of John one, then creation itself is crystal centric. So yeah, exactly.
Yeah, That's just something that I was kind of like like noticing in a way at least, and like that that got me to asking questions about like the previous diness you were haven't with like trent On as well, when you're exactly where where you said at the faithful Jews who lived before Christ in coronation worship good at least And it's like that the like isn't that kind of like because I answer this question as will like, isn't that kind of like have
like some kind of like perennial disconclusions in a way? I think? So, Yeah, I mean I argued that if you were consistent with your natural
theology, there's no reason why it couldn't lead you to perennialism. In fact, if you read the Garibie paper that we covered in the in the last trent Horne response stream, the Garibie paper argues at the beginning, citing John Hick, John Hick, if I recall, I'm going for a memory, John Hick was responding to Richard Swinburn, and he says, there's no reason to think that the natural theology basic attributes would necessarily lead you to Christianity.
Why cann't it leads you to perennialism if you're arguing that it's a lowest common denominator or list of attributes anyway? Yeah, plus like Jesus himself even like because what was the Jews themselves even like for like saying that they believe in one God being the Father and then Christ hilf exactly. Yeah. So like
isn't it kind of like like refuting Transon? Absolutely? Yeah? If you read this paper right here, Uh, the best response to all the Trent uh sort of natural theology stuff is this paper right here by doctor Garribee called Theistic Fallacies. I highly recommend it. We've you know, we covered it
from many years to people in the chat. If you want to hear the link to read that and it kind of goes through the many fallacies involved in natural theologies, not just one, but there's common ones that pop up, like quantifier shift fallacy. So yeah, yeah, good questions. Paul Ruddell, what's up? Man? Got an unmute broy Sorry about that? So good. I must have been just a little bit behind. Well, first of all, thank you very much for for hosting this, and I really
like here, thank you. We're almost out one thousand. I'm like right
below hitting a thousand lives ahead. My question is you're cutting out dog, go ahead, okay, So my my my question is, okay, my question is could we uh, could we say that that we could base our our well, you know, first of all at Christ is king and that two as as as orthodox now that we acknowledge that, and that he's king and lord overall creation, that that having a godly monarchy would simply be an acknowledgment of this reality, that that Christ is Christ is indeed king, and
that anything less than that would be kind of an unfortunate aberration from what should or ought to be. Yeah, I would I would agree with that because the idea of the monarch in like Byzantium, is that he's an icon of God. He's an icon of the rulership. You know, they often used imagery of David for the visinitsing Emperor. So he's kind of a dividic type of king. He doesn't have the functions of a priest, but he has the functions of God in terms of a dispenser of justice. So I think,
So, I mean, to me, that's obvious. Like I mean, I'm not saying that to you. I'm not saying that to you to be a smart ass. I'm saying, like, it's obvious in the history of Orthodox theology and you know church history and the councils that that's that's how
obviously how they viewed it. So right, no, no, no following that, couldn't we also, uh, can we also say that, I mean, isn't this kind of like this the to to acknowledge that reality is a you know, obviously it's an important part of our faith and it's a you know, we could say, like a self bific belief if you will. If I don't know, maybe beliefs aren't selfific in that way, but
if you, uh, but it is. Couldn't we say that that this this could save us or prevent us from from from from the defilement or the mire of modern day Paul politics, to to to realize that, you know, Christ is the ultimate authority and the the in the whole universe, and that everything that we might involve is going is going to be, you know, fairly probable matter. I can so to what extent can we or should
we even involve ourselves in that? And also as a as as a component of that question, can we can can we bring some godly influence to bear in the existing government? And this is a bit of a follow up question to a to a previous speaker, but I mean, at what point are we able to cross the rubicon two to bring a godly influence to bear in government? If you're saying that it's not our place to do so, or we don't want to do that by force, which is understandable because we believe
in free will. No, i'd said at the beginning. Maybe you didn't hear the it didn't hear the very beginning, but I said that. I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with Christians taking action to do things in politics. It's not what I'm interested in, but I don't think there's anything wrong with people doing it. I support people doing it that's there,
like their providential situation where that's what you know they're led to do. They should absolutely and I just said that they would probably be more effective on a
local level than like national politics. So so you know, I'm all for you know, I mean, there should be people, We should be people having people in all of the areas, Like we should be feeling the arts, we should be feeling media, we should be feeling you know, because if you're not entering monastic life, then it doesn't make sense to pretend you're
a monk. So a lot of people in the Orthodox world want to pretend like they're you know, pseudo monks or they're uh, you know, they're gonna have a family and they're going to be, you know, working in a factory. But to think they're monks, and it's like, you're not a monk, you're not called to that life. And if you're going to be married, you're going to be in the world and you're gonna have to have a job, you're gonna have to work with finances, you're gonna have
to understand how the world works. And so a lot of people nothing about you. But a lot of people use pseudo monasticism and pretending to be a monk as a cloak for their own laziness and their own sloth. And I think that's silly. So you got to grow out of that, be more mature than that. But not everybody has a call to want to be in public life or to want to be in politics. Michael Cisco really has that
desire. He wants to do it. I'm not his spiritual father, but you know, I told Michael, like, yeah, that's great if you want to if that's your calling, if you feel that desire, you know, it'd be like, hey, I'm a filmmaker, I want to be an I want to be in making films and be Orthodox. Oh I can't do that. That's the world. That's worldly. No, that's crazy.
I mean that's the very mindset that I think is the Protestant idea, Like the monk is the person who decided to renounce the world, okay, and for lay people to pretend like they're monks and act like, well, I'm too. The playoffs for everything and I will never be involved myself into anything. It's like to me, a lot of that's just being slimy in my opinion. So no, I mean I think, I mean if you don't, if we don't do this, then we're gonna be ruled over by degenerates.
So do you want to be ruled by degenerates or do you want to act, you know, in society in a virtuous way. It's like, you know anyway, that's my take. Appreciate those questions, Paul, you're kind of cutting out, not trying to be rude. But so let's move through these quick. I'm gonna I wanna try to get to the last few people here in this on this topic. But I do have to remind you, guys, if we do have a show sponsor, we got some more super chests I need to get to. But look, guys, uh,
I gotta tell you this. You have to hear this. I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zuomer Jim Brooks assuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an alpha or sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for Sigmas only.
It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals.
Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green cop been extract which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming
nasty fake sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad mode will make you more dominant in your daily life. So proceed with caution. M pass if do you consider these Seven day Adventists to be a cult? Mm hmm.
They're kind of on a They're kind of on a thin line there. I don't know if i'd go so far as to say a cold, but like kind of on the edge of it, so I'd say an evidence are almost culled pretty close. They definitely spawned cults like Joe's Witnesses. So one more question. I had also into a family member and their Seven Day Adventus and we were talking about, uh, like like, how does the Bible prove
that it's the word of God? And I was referring to you would have to extrapolate thats or you have to use you have to use something other than the Bible to prove that, and they kept saying that the Bible does it need to because it's a world of like it's like a circular argument, and they said it's the only thing that you could use a circular argument for that is there something I could get around this, like logic, I just I
don't know how to fight like they just keep they just keep screaming that I'd be able to say to that. I mean, if maybe they're confused about the idea that the transcendental argument is a type of circularity. But the point of that is to say that everybody's argument at a super fundament until level is going to ultimately be circular because there's going to be a certain point where you can't appeal to something else to justify that thing. And so that's what we
mean by grounding it out or or it becoming quote circular. It's not saying that you can now make circular arguments at any point, because in terms of first order argumentation sort of normal argumentation, circular arguments are fallacy. But that's a different category error to think that all things are proven are known in the same way. So, but I mean there's a lot of there's a lot
of different ways that that conversation might go. I mean, I think the best evidence for inspiration is the fulfilled messianic prophecies, So that's an evidence, and evidences can function as types of arguments or proofs. I think the ultimate strongest proof is a transient argument for God. But that doesn't mean that we're
like opposed to evidences. Now you have to use evidences for sure. So for the people in the chat that missed the super chat question, the first question was about Mary and orthodox view versus romccalthy view, and Mary and I said, we don't leave in ecconception. I'm sending this from three thousand feet in the air using Delta wi FI. Well, thank you, mister Anderson. I appreciate that certainly. Three twenty four asked me, is Michael Saylor
correct about bitcoin being decentralized? I said yes. He said, is this enough to prevent the elites from a global control agenda? I said, I don't think bitcoin is alone enough to save us from global les trying to bring about n WO. But it's definitely a big key thing for our side. But you know, life is much more than just economics, right, But that's a big economic plus for us. But I mean, you know, life has education, life has media, entertainment. I mean, so life
isn't just economics. I don't think that bigcoin alone is enough to beat the New World order, because the new World order is not purely and solely economic. It's also spiritual, it's also mental, it's it's a lot of different things. It's a full spectrum dominance approach. How does bitcoin fit into the Biblical end times? I have no idea. And then I said BMX ninety sixty six ten bucks, thank you so much. So that was where the
super chat said. When I came back, it was still muted. So that selah, what's up, Let's move through these if we can to get everybody on. You got a mute? Oh so sorry, Yeah, what's up? Uh? Yeah? I had a question about the Trinity and the Gold's attorney, and then I had a question. I had a debate with a Muslim the other day and he told me it doesn't make sense in the Orthodox you that only the father of the saiety. Could you expand on that?
Yeah, I would say the best answer to this question you should watch the bo brantson Jake the Muslim metaphysician debate, because they have an entire debate about this question. And the point is that because one member of a class possesses an attribute, it doesn't follow that every member of the class must possess that attribute to be in that class, so divinity is not reduced to a
sayity is the point? Okay? And also he made another point about the illegitimate canonization of saints in the Orthodox Church, like, would you accept, for example, the canonization of like say, the Russian Stars or like Nicholas the Second or what's what's the rvvie them meant to be? I mean, as far as I know, I would like, why would that be a legitimate What do you mean? I haven't heard of the illegitimacy argument. I
don't know about what is this? Well, he was mostly speaking from from an ethical perspective, but it doesn't really make sense to canonize someone like Nicholas the Second. But I don't really I don't really know how to respond to. Well. My understanding is that typically the Orthodox view of saints and canonization is not did they live their entire life with the highest level of moral purity? It's what types of actions did they do that might have led to a
supremely virtuous action such as martyrdom. So the thief on the cross did not live a life of the highest virtue, but he did repent towards the end of his life and so he's a saint. So I think Samson was a saint. It's odd to me when I hear Orthodox priests famous ones argue that Samson isn't a saint. I mean, he's a type of Christ. He obviously was repenting at the end of his life. He's an image of Christ pulling down the gates of Hades with the Temple of Philistine. So I don't
know. To me, it's odd that anybody would question whether Sampson is a saint. But yeah, good questions. I'm not really familiar with why people wouldn't think that the ours are saying. To me, that suggests like Western people who don't like Russia would think that's probably what's going on. I'm guessing I don't know, though. Joe Bama, what's up, Joe Bama? Uh? There you Joe, We got Joe Bamba, my wife, Michael, Hey, what's up? Jake? Can you hear me? All right?
Long time fan here, Thanks for letting me talk. Sure, this is kind of an elaboration on what I think Paul was asking earlier. But unless I like misheard what you were saying earlier, it made it sound like you kind of oppose like top down evangelization of America. You know, whether that's because it's not practical or because we you know, have free will to turn the christ you a sort of bottom up with but basically I just don't think it's realistic. So I mean, is it possible that, uh,
I don't know. Let's say Trump gets elected and then Trump gets interested in orthodoxy, and then Trump trusts to make American orthodox I mean, I don't think that would work, but is it possible. It's possible, it just doesn't seem likely, right, Yeah, So that's a good point. I guess My question is basically, like, you know, clearly we want to live in a Christian society and we want our laws to reflect Christian ethics.
You know, even if the majority of the people in the country oppose what you know, the Bible would say, you know, think abortion or something like that. So my question is, like, how far can we, you know, trust in a bottom up approach when it doesn't seem to like be working very well well. I mean, if there is no other options, like what are what are you supposed to do? Like, I mean, when the appropriate time calls for it, then we have to accept martyrdom.
I mean that's that's the Christian approach. So, uh Benjamin, what's up. I'm not trying to be ride. I'm trying to get through all the people. There's like eight people in a row here, so trying to move through. What's up, Benjamin? All right, Benjamin, can't connect, so we'll move on to the next person. Are you there? Uh yeah, what's up? Dude? Yeah, I'm a big fan, kind of nervous Soka. Uh so, uh so trying what's your question? I'm
trying to move through some people, So what's your what's your what? I wrote down three questions. So the first one is I remember watching through your critiques of Jordan Peterson with you know, classical liberalism and at that time talking about Christopher Langon. Oh yeah yeah, the High, the High IQ, the Roadhouse, Bartender High IQ Brobo. So would that ever happen or there?
He's very precise about how an interview has to be conducted, and he wants a lot of questions, and I just basically have free flowing conversations. So I never really followed back up with I just like to have like imprompt to improv conversations. So that's typically pretty much. And if you I guess that the one would be. The second one would be, do you have any books on like rhetoric or it's because you know, when people when I mean, if I was going to talk to somebody and they, you know,
insulted me, it kind of short circuits my thinking. I can't really get I can't really give a like a response to that. I think it's I think it's kind of supposed to do that, right, And that's kind of the point of an insult is to like get you all messed up and confused and you know, not paying attention to the issue at hand. So that's probably what it's meant to do. Yeah, but just like, Okay, I guess if that's the solution, well go ahead, what's the the
one. I don't know a good book on ridd If you're asking, you could ask, I bet Richard Grove does. I would ask Send a tweet to Richard Grove and ask him he knows a lot of those older classical pedagogy texts are there. And then talking like that, I can hear the insults. Yeah, you're cutting out, man, I can't hear. I'm sorry. Yeah, just ask Richard Grove what was a good textbook on rhetoricas ill? But you he knows one, Maximos, what's up? Man, Let's
get through the last few people here? Hello, what's up? Oh? Yeah? So my question. I'm an Oltle calendarist, and so my perspective is that we basically share the faith confession of faith. We basically share the idea that the cumunism is ecclesiological heresy, and we share that, we share basically the idea that you should not be commute with heretics. What's a certain line is across? And I think it just where you're cutting out, bro.
So I'm sorry that I heard you say that we're your old counteress and where's the line? I don't know the line, but I don't think that it makes sense to think that, Well, the line is everybody's immediately blacked out, and every lady should immediately decide who's blacked out. It just leads to infinite schisms, is my view. J T. Orthodox So superchat rebel rowboll three dollars. Can you discuss Yahweh's origins? Well, I believe in the Bible, So what do you mean it's origins? And the shift from
polytheism to monotheism in Israel. Yeah, I don't believe that. So if you watch my debate with Daniel Hikikachu the Muslim or if you want to go watch this video right here about the Jewish Trinity, I do not believe that there was a shift from polytheism to unitarianism in Israel. So thank you for
that super chat. Though I've only found Protestants and Michael Heizer, I mean, I believe in the Divine Council, but I mean the Orthodox to you is that the Trinity is an Old Testament teaching and that was the whole lynchpin of my argument against uh Daniel Kikachu and if your wife Sam Shimun, his
whole argument against Muslims is the same position. What's up? Yeah, Hi, I was recently down night in London and there was a sort of famous Apologies speaking and he usually goes for like sort of it's sort of like a proto humanist sort of view because it's sort of it's sort of based on the fact of like we know where the church is, but we don't know where
it is. Is that Bob yeah, the Builder? Yeah, yeah, I know Bob, And we've done a couple of podcasts, but we had a debate about ecumenism as well, and I've yeah, I've sort of been confused because it sort of seems like where he draws lines for certain things,
he doesn't draw them for others. Yeah, and that's that was actually the very argument I made the Barb. Yeah, and I feel like it's maybe situate situational because his sort of area is sort of in speakers corner, just sort of debating like sort of Daragandist, sort of Islamic sort of people just coming at him all the time, right, and there's loads of Christians in
that park. So do you think that there's times where maybe we have to be less sectarian and sort of unite even in the face of maybe some secondary doctrines being sort of well, I don't think we have to concede that those doctrines are secondary. I mean, but if you look at the track record that we have here, I mean, I do podcasts and talks with Sam Chamun, We've done it with Bob, I've done it with Tim Gordon,
and there's always the possibility of common cause. We just did a podcast not too long ago with Inspiring Philosophy, So there's always the possibility of making common cause without admitting to ecclesiology being secondary. So you know, we can always know our differences and at the same time say well here we agree against, you know, the Muslims. So I think both can be true. Yeah, and if there's not like an Orthodox church did by what is sort of
the best thing to do? Because I've sort of lived in a place where there's already got anger could the Church's Church of England sort of churches and there's some maybe Catholics, right, And it's sort of a confusing miss because it's sort of like if it is the one true church, it's sort of what can we do if we cannot sort of reach that body. You just do
the best that you can. I mean I had a situation where I was in that same situation for many years, so I would just get a prayer book, get an Orthodox study Bible, and do the best that you can. I mean, you know, God only expects you to do what you can. So all right, I'm about I'm about We got another eight people, so I apologize. We'll have another We do open forums all the time,
so just be ready if you want to hop on another time. But I'm getting pretty tired, so I don't know if I can keep going anymore. Bug Man, ten dollars, What do you think about be brother k I think that you know, in the Orthodox world you have to be under authority, so you can't be a non canonical just doing whatever you want in the Orthodox world. So you know, I've never promoted people that are that way. And the reason for that is has nothing to do with oh,
you're secretly scared you don't like that person. It's none of that. It's just that, you know, in the Orthodox system and approach, like, no man takes that authority on to himself. You have to have approval to
teach. Even if what you say is right or wrong or what like let's say that test case scenario, everything you're saying is correct, like that still doesn't mean that you have the authority of blessing to teach because for example, and I'm not saying this about any specific person, I'm giving example, if you go look at Patristic faith in the way that Father Deco Anaias approaches these things, he doesn't promote or allow anybody to be promoted or to teach or
whatever. Link anybody who doesn't have a specific episcopal blessing, and you know, maybe sometimes there's situations where people's status is foggy and I don't know, I don't I can't judge that person individually. But there's a reason why, as Paul says, no man takes it upon himself to teach, and I don't want to teach, like I always feel like I kind of how can I not teach? And then it's always kind to get drawn back in,
like Michael Corleone says, and go father two or three or whatever. Anyway, Yeah, so you got to be under authority, and you know, people might if people wonder, why, well, how come they don't have the blessing because they're saying a lot of true things. Well, there might be something that you don't know about this person that makes them not fit to
teach. So I'm not saying that specifically about any person. I'm just saying that the wisdom of the Church's approach to approved and non approved teachers is that just because somebody says something right, there's a lot of Protestants to say a lot of right things, but that doesn't mean to have the blessing to teach
anyway. Thank you guys a great chat tonight. Hopefully we brought a little bit of insight to the history and the question of the role and relationship between church and state, and we're a little bit more enlightened about what the issues are and we don't get caught up just in Internet stuff.