Jay Dyer VS Protestants (Compilation)

The Bible doesn't say if you're a Protestant or Catholic or art actually will be saved.

It says you must be born again.

Now, But what does that mean because the rest of the New Testament texts talk about that being baptism.

Yeah, well, born again is we have three kinds.

Of death in the Bible.

When is it physical death, spiritual death, and eternal death which is also called second death?

So that what does it have to do with baptism?

What I just said, baptism is an.

Outer you're just repeating Protestant Baptist doctrines. And I'm telling you in Titus three five it's called the washing of the labor regeneration.

Yes, but that's in this speed's what happens.

How do you know that you're just asserting that when Paul doesn't make that distinction. How do you know that every time Paul talks about baptism is quote spiritual, Well.

The baptism was an outer confession.

You're just restating the question I'm asking you, how do you know that that's what Paul means and all those passages about baptism.

Because it's all over the Bible.

It's so the answer is it's all over when that's the thing I'm asking you. So, in other words, so, why what are you for the third time going to just tell me your interpretation again?

No, it's not my Interpretation's what the Bible says.

That's what you're saying. That's what the Bible says, and I'm saying no. In John three, I think Jesus is talking about water baptism, and that's why Acts two Peter says, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins? Is it water baptism in Acts two thirty eight thirty nine.

What the bone again happens that repair?

Is it water baptism in Acts two thirty eight thirty nine. Yes, oh it is. But that's where he says, is the remission of sins?

No, the remission of sins it doesn't happen with washing.

In the water.

It literally says that in X two thirty eight thirty nine.

No, nobody gets saved by being baptizing the water.

That's your Yeah, please keep asserting the Protestant doctrine, which is what I'm challenging, which you said it is water baptism in actually thirty eight and thirty nine, and he says that that is the remission of sentence.

But listen, when I became a believer, I.

This is your subjective interpretation. I don't. It doesn't matter what you your personal experience was.

No, I'm telling you right now there are tens of thousands of Iranians who have become believers in Jesus and they are not able to get baptized because in Iran there's not possibility to get arrested or but they love the Lord and they're not even baptizing, but they're born again.

They're full of the Holy space.

Let's just lag in the question that I mean. They may be in God's mind and that's fine, but the normative means by which we do this is said to be multiple times throughout the New Testament, actual baptism. So you're just assuming Protestantism, which is the very thing that I'm questioning about. So how do you prove Protestantism to me?

Well, as I said, I'm not a Protestant, was a basically.

You are a Protestant. Why are you acting like you're not? Okay, evangelical? Is that better?

Yeah?

So basically, what happened with the Protestantism Martin Luther. It was a protest against Catholic system of you know, justification by works and punaware on faith plus works. And what all Protestant was was, no, we're justified again.

I don't need to I know the history of the pros and Reformation. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but I'm asking you about evangelicalism, which is what you're part of, and I'm asking you why should we accept evangelicalism.

Again, It's not evangelicalism.

Or being dishonest because you just admitted that you weren't evangelical like two minutes ago.

Yeah, evangelical What is evangelical?

The Christians.

I'm not going to argue with you over terms. Where do you get your Bible from?

What do we? What are we?

Where do you get the Bible from? Did it just fall out of the air into Iran?

No? I actually you run is illegal to a Bible. So I don't live in your own now.

I live in Israel. But when I when I became believer it, I started for a Bible for three months.

We're moving on.

So you made a video a while bag talking about Protestism and criticizing them a bit, and this open debate, perform plat format you do.

And three issues you said you.

Stayed with it was it was a historical, it was anti sacramental, anti mystical, and.

Just flat out done.

Yes, the problem that I have with that is specifically a historical and the issues I have with that is and some of the issues you gave for why protestant is antihistorical was they don't follow the liturgical warship properly, They don't do certain customs and traditions that were practiced by the early Church, and don't have the exact same pieces of scripture or some example.

Those are some examples. There could be many more listed for sure.

And the issue I have with that, if Protestantism.

Is a historical by those standards, I would say, so is Orthodoxy.

And how is that.

Well for starters Constantinople fell in fourteen fifty three.

You can't be serious that this is an argument that you think this is an arguments the start of one. Yeah, what does this have to do with the theology. This is why I block this guy, because this is too too dumb. I mean, are you the synoticon of Orthodoxy?

Yeah?

Because I believe in the Sonoticon of Orthodoxy, in one of the statements you give Thanksgiving, and that is the glorification and of the defenders of Orthodoxy.

Might not mistaken, probably I don't remember. It's a giant text.

It's a giant text that's different among different branches of Orthodoxy.

Right because different bishops can add their own personal For example, Metropolitan saraphim A Preas adds the Joe's witnesses to the condemnation texture.

And the problem I have with that is the statement of the defender of Orthodoxy, which originally within the Church.

Was the Holy Roman Emperor.

As was stated by Anthony, Patriarch of Constantinople in thirteen ninety three to a letter of to letter to Basle the First, the Grand Prince of Moscow, saying, my son, it is not possible for Christians to have a church and not have an emperor. Church and Empire have a great unity and community. It is not possible for them to be separated from one another. For the Holy Emperor is not as other rulers and the governors of other regions.

And this is because the Emperor is from the.

Beginning establish and confirmed true religion Eustia in all inhabited world okiomenia, they convolse.

Yeah, I don't know how to pronounce.

The word, obviously, And so orthodoxy is false because Byzantium fell, I mean.

It's not just that Bonancium fell.

Puppet.

Now we see why I booted this guy, and I was right to boot that guy. This is too stupid to even entertain. So, guys, I know you want entertainment, but when you asked me to bring back Banantium and these kinds of goofballs, it's usually because they're booted for a reason. So let's get on my banana phone and let's call up Banantium and let's talk to the Bananantine emperor and see if we can get any history about why he's not ruling on an earthly throne to help

Does the Eastern or the Church think that Saint Augustine is a saint?

Yes, he's called a saint of the Fifth Act Medical Council.

Okay, did the old heresies.

He held to errors? An error is not necessarily heresy. Every church father, in some way has some error that doesn't make them all heretics.

Okay, So the philioque absolute divine simplicity or in heresies.

A heresy is something that's declared to heresy by the Church eventually in a council. Augustine didn't believe anything erroneous at his time that he knew was a heresy, so I philioquay is not condemned until the Middle Ages.

Okay, So before the nice and kind of the Nicean Council, if someone held that Jesus was in God or go substantial with the Father, then they were inhertics, right according.

To that law. No, No, because some errors are significant enough that the person that holds them. It's the attitude that they have and the humility that they have. So for example, when Augustine writes on the Trinity, he says, in book three, I am speculating, and I give these books to the judgment of the Universal Church, and if there's anything wrong in them, they can be rejected. So that's the attitude of humility to you. That, for example,

Okay, gotcha.

Was he later corrected though by other bishops and other theologians.

If he hands his book to the Church for judgment, and Church that doesn't mean that it happens overnight, if the Church doesn't in his lifetime judge it, but the Church judges by the time of the Fifth Acumenical Council that he's a saint. And by the way, do you know what book the Fifth Actumdical Council lists as his pre eminent theological work. No, okay, it's none of those books. It's against the Manicheans, so it's not on the Trinity or See of God or any of these other works.

Okay, gotcha, that was my question. Thank you, all right.

So, heresy is a sin of will and obstinacy, not just a sin of mistake or error, and not even Roman Catholics believe that he got everything right. They think he made all kinds of theological mistakes, which would mean that Roman Catholicism is false if that's the criteria. Because Augustine taught a pretty strict doctrine predestination that the Roman cally Church eventually doesn't adhere to. So if that's the case,

Just had a couple of questions, like about Eastern Orthodox relationships.

I guess to the Reforms, Okay, so.

I guess for starters, the main condemnation of the Reformed would be their relationship to Roman Catholicism.

Correct, the Orthodox condemnation of the Reformed would be the relation to Roman Catholicism. I don't know they even know what that means.

Like I suppose I can qualify the question.

So the Reformed are going to try to make some claim about their Apostolic succession, at least the High Reformed, right, and they're going to trace that through Roman Catholicism. They're not going to trace it through like either the East Split.

I've never heard of a Reform person who believes in Apostolic succession, so I don't even know what that means.

Oh interesting, all right, maybe this is some niche view. I guess the second question, I mean.

Maybe an Anglican Calvinist High Church Anglican Calvinists would try to claim that's why.

I mean, yeah, yeah, I've heard that from High Church Anglicans through Reformed Anglicans even, but I've heard it from like OPC guys, right, Orthodox Presbyterians.

No.

I mean, well, I mean, if they want to redefine what the word a succession means, then that's what they're doing. Because there's no Protestants who are Classical Reformation Protestants that believe that there's a transmission of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands.

Kind of in the same way that a Lutheran is going to argue for the historicity and apolasticity of the Lutheran Church.

But that's not what I just said.

Right, No, I'm recognizing the distinction.

Then it's not apostolic accession. It's redefining the terms to make Protestantism and continuity with some made up traditions, just like they do the same thing with Niceno Constantapolitan Creed, where it says one Holy Catholic Apostolic and they redefine that to me an the invisible Church.

Yeah, I'll just can see that. It's like redefining No problem there. So the second question would be.

I've seen maybe I obviously need to read more about Eastern Orthodox resources on the sovereignty of God, but it seems to me that like certain historic views within the Eastern Orthodox can be consistent with like maybe four point or three point five, you know, tool of affirming Calvinists.

Do you agree or disagree? No?

Okay, which of the points, like, do you flat out reject on all of them?

Fair enough?

All right, I'm not gonna take up too much time if you ever want to have like a formal debate.

I DM.

Do you so? Thanks for the space?

Well how about right now?

No with me, I'm not good enough of this. I have other people that I can talk to you or link you up again I do. I mean what their names? Is it?

Somebody with an audience over a few hundred followers?

Uh? Yeah, a couple of them. Jonathan Speaks would be one of them.

And how big is his audience.

I'd probably guess around five six hundred?

No, thanks, thanks for your time.

Again. The Twitter spaces are for four or five hundred two three five thousand. I'm not doing any formal debates unless you have a large following. I didn't work my butt off debating a thousand goobers to debate all the top atheists and Muslims, to spend all my time debating a bunch of five hundred follower people who want to chase clout and grow their audience. So that's why you get the Twitter space and they don't come here because all they want is a big audience. Jud are you there?

Yeah?

I can hear you. It's real quiet, can you hear me?

Yeah?

Hey, I don't know why your volume is super long on my phone, but I'm here, Okay.

I had a question for you.

So I'm a Protestant, I'm an Evangelical and I've been inquiring it too Orthodoxy and it's really fascinating stuff.

I'm trying to learn as much as I can.

The thing that I am having a hard time really understanding is your guys view on christ sacrifice and it comes to the shedding of blood and the Old Testament sacrificial system. You know, that's really deep be ingrained in Protestant view of salvation and.

Literally, so what I'm gonna say is, I'm gonna what I'm gonna say is go watch the video Protestant Penal Substitution Jay Dyer. So we've literally covered this probably five hundred times. It comes up in every open space. So if you look at my clips channel, you'll find multiple things on PSA. I try to be rude. I'm just like, it's like probably a thousand times we've responded to that. Go ahead, hello, yep.

Hey, So also Protestant here, very disgruntled Protestant.

Uh.

I would like to go east Orthodoxy, but my wife has voice and concerns about y'all's mariology of Holy and do y'all see her as totally sinless, like she has.

Never once in her life?

Or is that she is the most pure, most blessed and and like, I get all that part, but y'all can make the contention that she's never sinned ever.

Yeah, she's a spatless virgin and God's grace preserved her from sinning.

Gotcha. And so that would be a.

Stumbling block for my wife is that she would not be comfortable saying that Mary only is sinless.

She would say that she's most.

Pure if that's fine, but she would have the issue of making the jumpsy sinless.

What do you what do you recommend?

I mean, I made a whole video on the importance of Mary, and I would say that, you know, I like if if all the other doctrines are true an Orthodox, see, it doesn't make any sense to say, but I'm not going to submit to this one that I don't like

My first point is when we look at Jesus, did Jesus use tradition in the way that you would envision it in your definition of tradition?

Yes? Could you show us that well, he specifically.

Could you give us the Eastern Orthodox definition and then show.

Us he specifically said that the Word of God was himself and not the books to the Pharisees.

No, you're not listening to me.

Right here we go, I'm asking you to give me the definition of Eastern Orthodox.

You understanding of tradition?

Yeah, it's the full revelation, whether containing the written text or the oral preaching of the apostles. How's that okay? The faith once we're all committed to the saints.

Yeah, no, I think you're still don't give it a.

Full definition, right, and so you go make more YouTube videos.

I don't want to know your thoughts are fully ocal. Okay, go ahead, yeah, so yeah, so do you what's the Orthodox position? Do y'all?

Do y'all deny that there's any procession of the Holy Spirit through the Sun.

No, there is a procession through the sun, but it is not his existential hypostatic origin.

Okay.

But if it's the case that the Holy Spirit, if it's the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the sun, right, then then what really is any difference between the Orthodox position of philioko are.

Not because that's not the position that's laid out of the Council of Lions in Florence. That position says that there's a double eternal hyposthetic principle from the Father and the Son, who function as a single principle of the origin of the Holy Spirit. And that's something that we can never accept because it gets to the sun, the unique property that identifies the Father.

Well, you would you would agree that there's going to be a distinction between being begonton and being preceded.

Right, that has nothing to do with what I just said.

Well, yes it does, because the Catholic like like you said, the Catholic position is going to be that the Father and the Son is the one principle that the Holy Spirit spir rates from.

There's nothing that two persons in the Trinity share, as the Cappadocians say that one lacks. And so you've created a diad. So you reject you created because the Father and the Son are a united principle of power and causation that the Spirit does not have. So that's an imbalance, that's a diad.

Well, but that but that's that's what distinguishes being forgotten or the Son being forgotten, and the and the Spirit being preceded. Right, because of the amount of people that takes that that takes part are not the amount of persons that take parts in preceding the Holy Spirit, at least in the Catholic view, right, we can make the case that the Holy Spirit truly is proceeded and not just be gotten right from the Father.

So you're repeating Roman Catholic apologetic apologetics that doesn't even address like the level of which we're talking about this question. So can you repeat to me what my argument was?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the argument was that, well, you pretty much just laid out of our position. Then you said that, oh, I've created a diead because it's going to be like the two persons, the fathering son being the one principle in which, right, the Holy Spirit pretty much originates from or essence from that.

Is that your position?

And why is that a problem?

Yeah? I don't see the problem.

Why did I Why did I say that's a problem.

Well, you said, you said those are problems because I created a diead, right.

And why is that? I said specifically, there's a reason why.

Yeah, because the father and the son is the one principle.

And why is that a problem?

You tell me?

Okay, I mean, I'm trying really hard to be patient with you guys, but like I literally stated explicitly what the problem is, and you've come with like level one understanding and you want to debate it, which is fine. I don't mind doing it. But did it ever occur to you, Did it ever occur to you to maybe read some of the arguments on this before you went to debate it?

Yeah, yeah, I know, so I I but you.

Can't restate my argument, So you're not Are you not listening to what I said or you just didn't catch it. You want me stated again.

Well, will your position on the matter would be that the father is the only principle?

Right?

And who said that? Anybody in church history?

Well, I mean I'm asking you, do.

You know of any famous church fathers that were involved in any ecumenical councils that maybe said that.

I know church fathers that believing Philly Opy. Do you, yeah, Augustine?

Mm hmm? Do you accept that or do you deny that?

No? I mean I don't accept his teaching. No, it's wrong.

Oh oh so he does, so he does accept absolutely, But he's a saint in your church.

Do you really think that these are owns that we haven't addressed these arguments probably five hundred times. I mean.

No, I mean that's I know the copium that you guys use.

So let's let's get into that. All right, you want to do this, let's do it. What council confirmed the Doctor of the Trinity for the Universal Church?

The council? Did I see that? No?

So you see, you don't even know the first of this. You don't even know level one of this debate. It's the second Ecaemical Council. Who are the three fathers that are the most important of the second ecamical Council?

The second was the second?

So you don't know anything, and you're trying to debate.

Are you talking about what is all the go with Philio boy?

Exactly? So you don't even know the Cappadocian doctrine of the trinity that's outlined at constant double one.

I don't know, I mean I is it like correct?

Yes?

Yeah?

Yeah, And that's not a filioquated doctrine because tell me what the hypostatic property of the.

Father is the hypostatic property, So.

You don't even know the basic Cappadocian terms. You don't even know our basic position, and you're trying to argue with me and call it you call it code.

Tell you, yeah, the hyposthetic property of the father is that he's the one that again he's he's the one principal.

Oh, he's the one principal. But you just said a minute ago that you agree that the son is also a co principal with him, so he's not the one principal. How many principles are how many principles are there?

There's one principle?

No, you don't you believe there's one, And you contradicted by saying that the father and the son together are a principle that's two.

Yeah, that's that's the one principle. It's not gonna be two principles.

You just said the father is the principal, and then you said the father and the son are a principle. That's two. Can you count the father?

And what do you this dowel argument?

Are you this dumb? You don't even know our position? You said, you said the father is the principal, right.

The father and the son are the one principle.

At first you said the father is the principle. I asked you his hypothetic property. You said it was to be the principal. That's just hype. Well, yeah, you said that, don't lie. You said that, Yeah I know.

Yeah, yeah, I understand that the mother is going to be the principal.

Oh then there you go. Now you've contradicted because the father and the son together are now a principal. That's the problem. So that's two principles.

I never negated that the son is a principal.

If the father is the principal and the son also with him, is also a principal, that's two.

Well, I don't know, they're both the same principle.

Okay, now you're a modal Now you're a modalist because now you've said the Father and the Son together are a principle. That's modalism.

How does that follow.

Because that's the argument that the Gappatoians made against the Eunomians. You're confusing hyposthetic properties with common powers and energies.

Where are you getting this notion from?

Have you read Basil on the Holy Spirit? Have you read Basil against Unomious?

Oh, Basil against the Basil is what you would be.

I thought you knew all this stuff. You're not familiar with those works?

Can you repeat? Can you repeat what you say?

Basil on the Holy Spirit and Basil against Unomious?

Have you read those iusunomious?

Don't even know the words?

What does.

Nonymious? Anonymious? So you're not even familiar with this. You're not familiar with it? Is you're a clown that because it shows that you're not familiar with the literature, and you're trying to debate it.

Why that's not true?

True? You don't know the terms. You're demonstrating your ignorance of the whole scope of this.

Oh, because I pronounce.

No, it means that you're not familiar with the literature. You couldn't even tell me to works.

This is no no, have you read this?

Have you read this literature? Have you read this literature?

Uh? The literature? Ons? Why does that matter? Can you show me where?

Because it shows that you don't. It shows that you're not familiar with the topic. You don't know to pronounce the basic terms.

Right.

No, No, you're about to cry, dude, like, Look, it would be whove you to go and understand this stuff before you try to debate it, and you did come here to debate.

Can you please just show me where Saint Basil.

Argues against who's the Who's the soul cause? Who do they argue is the sole cause?

The soul cause? What do you mean by soul calls?

So you're not, again, not familiar with common terminology throughout all the cappadtions soul cause, soul cause, father is the sole cause? The cap dictum? Shut up? Shut up? All right, you're gone.

He's running.

No, you made it a fool of yourself. I'm not running from you. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to explain it to you. You won't shut up, Shut up, and I'll tell you that's fine sole cause their dictum is anything that is a hypostatic property is unique to the person's and non communicable or shareable. Anything that is not a hypostatic property is common to all three.

Well yeah, well.

No, it does not relation itself is a predicate, not a subject. Persons are subjects, not relations.

Yeah, but that's the thing that so you would.

Know that if you've read the Cappadocian. So you have no knowledge of this topic and you're trying to debate, I'm asking, what does persona at rolatio mean?

Oh, now he wants Now he wants to speak Greek.

Persona at Rolatio's Latin, you idiot. Oh and I don't know Latin, I don't care about Latin. But this guy just showed this is the arrogance of these people no knowledge of these topics. They want to debate it. Persona at rolatio is Aquinas's dictum person is relation. So the first person to say that is that I'm aware of is perhaps Augustine, but at least for sure Aquinas.

I think most Orthodoxy or Catholics don't believe that salvation is by grace through faith, and I make the I'm gonna make the claim that it is.

On the scriptures.

Well, we believe that it is, but we believe that those words mean different things from you. So it's not that we reject the scriptures or don't believe in salvation by faith or by grace, but we don't believe that it's a legal standing that's imputational, which is based on a heretical trinitarian theology, like.

A legal standing. The word justified is a legal term, is it not?

Yeah, But it's not a purely fictional imputational legal standing. That's what I'm saying is impossible because nobody in the ancient medieval world were nominalists, and you need nominalism to have that position.

What do you mean by nominalists?

Sorry?

Right, So the reformers like Luther relied on medieval nominalists like Akham and Bile to figure out how it was possible for God to declare people to be a legal state that they weren't ontologically that thing. So that's nominalism, that it's a name only position, a legal standing position that doesn't reflect an actual ontological change in being. And since nobody in the ancient Imita the world were nominalists until Aukham, that means Paul didn't teach your.

View, doesn't it say everyone's four to five? That's let's see, let me pull it up here.

So you're not gonna address what I said. You're gonna blow.

Past you know.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to ignore it.

Have you read Alistair McGrath? No, what is that funny? I don't understand.

No, I'm just I'm not laughing at you.

I'm just saying, no, I haven't well, but you laughed, so I don't understand why it's funny.

I don't.

I don't know.

It's just chuckle, dude. Okay, I'm a little I've never done one of these before, so it's a bit new to me. Maybe more of a nervous laughter.

Okay. Well, McGrath is one of the most famous modern Oxford Protestant scholars. He wrote a book called Eustacia Day and in that book he admits that nobody in the ancient a medieval world until about fifteen hundreds had the idea of justification by faith alone.

Okay, here, let me pull up some quotes here then, didn't uh, let me fall some quotes with some church fathers.

Okay, church fathers who believed in apisodic succession and the real presence you think they taught justification.

Let me pull on.

You're going to pull up a bunch of quote minds that don't say what I'm saying. They say what you think they're saying. So you're going to read into these church fathers who also teach the necessity of works and then use the real presence. You're going to try to quote mind then to prove the Protestant doctrines. Okay, I used to be a Protestant, Dude, I did all this. Don't you think I know what you're gonna do?

What do you put you mean?

I'm just trying to put out a position here and I don't.

I don't know, like I'm not particularly the.

Romans for let's go to Romans for when Paul, who does Paul? Where does Paul cite? In Genesis and Romans for.

Okay, let's just read it here Romans for three four.

What's say at the scripture Abraham believed God and it was kind.

Of him for righteous? Yes?

Where is he citing a.

Roman's death Genesis chapter fifteen, verses three six?

Right? Now, tell me this in the Protestant view in terms of the transition from rath to grace, as the reformer spoke of, when was that in Abraham's.

Life Genesis chapter fifteen when it says he believed God?

Thank you for refuting? Yes, thank you for reputing. Thank you for refuting Protestantism, because it's just it's Genesis twelve where Abraham first believes and does several chapters of good works before Genesis fifteen. So you just refuted Protestantism in Romans four.

No, because you read, you read the rest of the chapter. It's talking about Genesis chapter fifteen or so.

You literally heard nothing I said, and you're not addressing area. You don't even understand the argument. You're you're blowing past the argument.

Maybe maybe I'm just not quite getting with you.

Right, You're not correct. Do you want me to state it again? Sure, the transition from wrath to grace should be Genesis twelve, not fifteen. So by Paul citing Genesis fifteen, you refute the Protestant position.

I'm sorry, I don't follow that because, oh my god, hold on, hold on, dude, hold on, because in Genesis twelve, the command was just get out of your country. It wasn't that he'd be a father of many nations or if it was, like he didn't completely comprehend that, and it records.

Did he believe in faith and general So this is this is let me present my position. You're you're you're ignoring the argument.

I'm not trying. I'm not trying to.

Yes, you are. You're inventing a bunch of bull crap about No, he wasn't so he wasn't justified in no, you're not. You don't even know what the word of God is. You don't even know what. So he does three chapters of good works, but he's not justified yet. This is how silly your position is.

Okay, yeah, yeah, so.

God didn't make a covenant with him.

Now to him, that worketh is the reward not right.

So you're not going to listen to the argument. You're just gonna starting.

You're not listening to me. You're not letting me get.

Did Abraham believe God in Genesis twelve?

He believed? Okay, let's just let's just quote that. Let's go to Genesis twelve.

Let's just go there, yess twelve, that's in Genesis twelve.

Three.

Does he build an altar in verse eight and call upon the name of the Lord and worship him?

Oh, all right, Genesis twelve, Get the out.

Of that country, and from my kindred and from my father's house onto a land that I will kill thee.

I will make of the a great nation that will bless thee, and make thy name great, that thou and thou shalt be a blessing.

And I will bless them the blessed being curse and the curse of thee. Oh, sorry about that? That will bless them, the blessed being curse and the kirsty. And then these shall all families with the earth to bless. So Abraham departed, as the Lord had spoken about him.

Does he build an altar in versus seven eight nine, worship God.

I'm getting there. I'm getting there, all right, all right, I'll just go to verse eight.

And he removed from thence onto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west verse.

Seven, eight and nine. Seven.

Excuse me, I didn't I didn't hear, so.

I said, seven eight nine, he builds an altar.

Dude, I didn't hear you, so my mistake. And the Lord appeared onto Abraham and said, unto the sea, but I give this land. And there he built an altar, unto the Lord who appeared unto him.

Okay, yeah, oh, but he's not saved yet.

Well listen, well, when was he declared righteous? My God? You tell me when? When does the.

Bible say that he was declared righteous by God? When did it count for it?

For right now, I'm showing the stupidity of your interpretation of Roman school.

Okay, that's an assertion. That's an assertion that you're making. You're not really backing it up, though, So I'm.

It up by the fact that shut up, shut up, shut up, or you're gone. In verse in verse in verses seven and eight, he worships the Lord God. Obviously accepts this worship. He acts in faith for the next several chapters until Genesis fifteen. So this refutes your stupid argument that he was saved in fifteen. So Romans four doesn't teach the Protestant view. It's just your assumption that it taught the Protestant view.

Okay, let me ask you this Roman.

Now you're going to change the subject.

I am not. I am not going to change the subject.

So was he not saved for three chapters of good works?

And I asked a question.

You're not No, was he not saved?

No? Because it doesn't say he was declared.

Okay, so yeah, you're an idiot, so so so God. So he does all these good works and he's not saved until to just save your stupid position it is. It's nonsense, you're so he's not He's not lauded for his faith when he goes into Egypt in fourteen.

W are you talking about specific thirteen?

So when he fourteen, when he when he after the Battle of the Kings, when he tithes to Malkisa deck, he's not even saved yet for his he's lauded as a faith champion in Hebrews eleven when he's not even saved. This is how stupid your position is.

Okay, so that's that's what you're just gonna do, just like I just dunk on somebody who's never done this before.

So now you're playing victim when you're ad a bunch of bad arguments. Well, you're dead about me. I've never done this before. No you're not. No, you're not. No, you're not. It is retarded because so and so you're saying that he's an enemy of God when he's lauded for tithing to makiz dec in fourteen.

No, no, no, okay, yes you are saying that.

Why are you lying if he's if it's not, if he's not saved, you are because if he's not saved until Genesis fifteen, then he's still undergo wrath and an enemy of God in the protest position. What are you saying? On my goodness, that's your position?

Can I at least state what I was going to say?

Or you said that he's not saved until fifteen? That means in this story? That is that not what it means to be saved in the Protestant view? Okay, all right, you're e're a liar You're so dishonest, man, You are being dishonest. Why are you even here doing this? It's just ridiculous, dude. So there you go. So Abraham is over here tithing. He's lauded in Genesis in Hebrews eleven as a model of faith. After he goes to battle to save Lot in Genesis thirteen and he's lost in

Okay, I'm trying to understand some of the issues that you have with the.

Reformed or the Protestant world.

And am I right in understanding that your view is specifically a rooted in epistemology, that the Church has determined the canon or I guess I'm trying to figure out how the ontological aspect.

Relates to that. If there's a.

If the Church determined scripture via the Holy Spirit, or if the church is recognizing the canon in a passive sense, and it so much seems to hinge on that, and I'm just looking for some clarify.

I mean, it sounds like a lot of speculation, Like you don't think we can go and read the people who determine the canon. So you're talking about active and passive, and like, so what the six Ecumentical Council, the people that wrote the Abstaltic Canons were passive? I mean that doesn't make any sense. What are you talking about?

Okay, so.

If you would recognize me as such, I was a convert out of atheism. However, I wouldn't be recognized as Orthodox, so you might dispute that. So when I come into it, I've already come into a place where people are saying here's the canon, and then later I discovered the Orthodox are saying, well, actually it's this. There's a few other books involved, And so would I kind of come into it. I'm looking, Okay, why do the Protestants say this is their canon?

Why do the Catholics say X this?

In likewise, what are you talking about active and passive? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, but like this whole history go.

Ahead, yes, because I what I was hearing from the reform position. That is, it sounds like they assert the ontological distinction first, that God determines scripture.

How do they know that these are assertions? I mean, I can cite you in church history specifically when and where the canon was discussed, debated, and determined. For example, the Apostolic Canons, which most Protests don't even know what that is. The eighty fifth Apostolic Canon, for example, mentions Maccabees and sirrric And when the QUINTESESX Council of six ninety two, which is affirmed at the Seventh Medical Council in seven eighty seven, mentions the canonical scriptures, It mentions

Right right, and I wouldn't dispute that. But what seems to be have taken place is that heterodox pressures seem to back the historical Church into a position of saying we must formally make this declaration.

And yeah, which means that they weren't operating on solar scripture prior to that, right, right.

From what I understand is that Protestants are arguing that solar scripture is the recognized is the primary documents on apostolic authority, and so it almost sounds like it's just a matter of method that these are the primary documents by which we judge all subsequent tradition and dogma or anything based off of it.

And so they're always referring to.

This specific canon as the means by which we judge all this. And so what I've come to learn is that a lot of books that other traditions are saying should be included in the canon.

I've come to.

It later as an understanding through Protestants that these are important documents, but that the canon is basically man's recognition of something that's already onto logically prior so that the authority of God.

Yeah. Point, So nobody is denying that the texts were inspired and they have authority from God. The point is that it's a post apostolic decision that's very late, that involves human beings that Protestants think were fallen, fallible and didn't have the Gospel that made the decision of what makes up that canon. And it's not just that, it's also you don't have a time machine to go back

Yes, And I think what you're saying is I largely agree with everything that you're saying. I guess I'm trying to just narrow the scope of the disagreement and I'm trying to figure it out because when I hear you discuss it, it sounds good. It sounds like, yes, there's this epistemological concern that that takes precedent, and I don't know if that provides a certain psychological.

Security well okay, or or if if.

There's a an ontological priority and we're just not sure, but we know that they're has to be this higher divine recognition or is it impossible that we would have failed to grasp the canon?

I mean all of this, I mean the whole point has just become orthodox, Like what's all of this yappin and speculation about all this and that? Like what are you talking about? Like it's the church historically determined the canon, and it is the Orthodox Church, and you can go read those people.

And so you would equate all of the.

All of the church history because when I when I read church history, I hate to say this, but it almost seems a bit messy.

Uh.

There's guys that are saying this guy was a heretic on that position. And and so it seems to be that the community is pretty broad. But the one thing that seems to be central is they all have a deep reverence for scripture, even prior to a a complete it can and a formal recognize.

Yeah, but that has nothing to doe in no way does that prove the Protestant doctrine of sa scripture.

So maybe I'm misunderstanding the Protestant doctrine because it seemed.

To be do you believe that it's a fallible collection of infallible books?

Yeah? You know.

To be honest, I'm not sure if it's a fallible collection. I seem to agree with the way it developed in church history.

So it's an infallible collection. So you would assign infallibility to a decision of the church post apostles. That's not Protestant.

Well, I'm not a I don't know how to make that declaration of that firm commitment as to whether I think it was fallible or infallible collect.

Well, if it's not fallible, it must be infallible. There's not a whole lot of options there is there between those two.

They're mutually exclu I'm just not yeah, and I just don't feel comfortable saying one way or the other.

It seems like.

I don't see any reason how how are I don't have any.

Okay, so uh to how it forms. If you don't have an objection, then you don't have a problem with the Apostolic canons.

They are are.

I'm sorry, I would have to familiarize myself specifically with Apostolic canons.

So you're not familiar with that.

Are you talking about a specific recognition like uh, a collection of documents? Yes, okay, unless maybe I'm misunderstanding the name or something.

Cannons are some of the earliest forms the collections of church law. Canon law. Are not arguing that they're infallible because they're called Apostolic canons. I'm just pointing out that Canon eighty five is a list of the canonical texts that the ancient Church in the fourth century considered canonical. That list is what's cited at Trollo in six point ninety two, which is normative for the Orthodox Church, and then Trollo is affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in

Where talking to a Protestant and they are like very adamant that like every single thing that we need to know about the Christian life and faith is in scripture and that we don't need like con traditions and stuff like that. How do you responded, at.

Well, if everything that we knew was in scripture, then the list of the canonical books would be in scripture. If everything that we needed to know was in scripture, then we would have, you know, all of the later necessary doctrines that are formulated at like at Nica about the Trinity, the Dear Christ. They would have also been explicit in the scriptures, but they're not. So where was that, for example, where's the New Testament statement on how we

They were supposed to go into the church, the house church bro and they were supposed to make it up and get a smoke machine in the laser lights, and did a Paul the apostle went and got a bunch of the laser lights, and he put it into the house church. And they was doing whatever they wanted dude.

That was my boomer evangelical voice.

There, so hi ja hey, I wanted to ask a couple of questions. So I was taught by my prof that in Saint John of Vaskin's work on Holy images, he states that the saints are present inside the icons. This so implied that the saints are actually omni present, because you could have like multiple images of Saint Luke and he would be in all of these icons. So my question would be, can only holy beings or I guess like elohem is probably the best word to describe it, be omni present.

So the saints are deified, and so they're present via the divine energies because they're divide. So they're not present because they're God in a natural in a sense of divine nature, but they participate in the divine energies, which allows them to be deified, which allows them to be in a mystical way present. And that's why if you read Revelation five through nine, when John seas into heaven on the Lord's Day, he's on earth, but he's in

So what do you mean by I'm just confused by what you mean by deified? Like they they're given like a not a godhood necessarily.

But like well, Jesus says in Jesus says in John seventeen that he came to give us a share, a real participation in the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. Jesus says, I have said ye are gods to the Pharisees, and Peter says that we've become partakers of the divine nature. So that's deification. Thats theosis you really do become immortal.

Okay, I guess I'm just confused between what you mean by.

Like immortal versus like the understanding of like being in multiple places at once.

For me, I guess would confuse me.

So again, are the saints in heaven on earth or not? In Revelation five to nine, Huh, they're not.

They're not on earth.

I don't remember. Well, how is there an altar on earth in Hebrews thirteen.

So they're in heaven.

Heaven comes down to earth in the liturgy. That's what I'm trying to say. Oh, okay, When John in Revelations five to nine is praying in the spirit on the Lord's Day, he's doing the liturgy and he sees into heaven and he sees the heavenly liturgy opened up. That he's in heaven. So Heaven comes down to us in the liturgy, and that's how the saints are present.

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I'm still kind of confused, but it's okay.

I have to read more.

So we'll read Revelation five through nine and think about that as the heavenly worship service being also on earth. We are raised up into heaven. This incarnation, the incarnation, brings Heaven to earth and us into heaven. Heaven is already here, so it's now the Kingdom of God is on earth. It's the church, it's the liturgy. So when Paul says, and he was thirteen, that we have an altar that we eat from, that the people who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat, he's saying that's

Uh?

Oh yeah?

Kind of, it's I don't know.

What I'm saying is that in Hebrews thirteen, Paul talks about there being an alter on earth where we eat, and I'm saying that that's the same alter that's in heaven in the Book of Revelation that John sees. You're not you don't understand what I'm saying.

I mean, kind of the thing that I'm kind of fogging on is whether, like heaven is on earth right now, because when you hear like, oh, he will wipe every tear from their eye, people still weep today, and so how can.

We That doesn't mean that, right, And that's why Paul says that even though he ascended, we do not yet see all things subjected to him. In Corinthians, so there's a process of working this out in history even though the work is already complete.

Okay, Or does Paul say that.

Right now our first Corinthian. I'm going for a memory of first Corinthians. Right now we see we do not yet see all things subjected to him even though he is ascended. Is it first Greendi is fifteen Okay?

Yeah, I was just wondering because my prophet is basically talking first.

Is fifteen twenty eight. We all now when all things are made subject to him. Excuse me, it's Hebrews too, where he says that even though all things are subject to him, we do not yet see all things in history subjected to him. But all things are subjected to him when he rose on the cross instead of the right hand of the father, so he began to reign when he ascended, right.

Yeah, Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I think my prop was just really throwing me off because we were learning about how basically in Mesopotamia they believe that God would reside.

In an idol that you made, and then she made.

The illusion that the Orthodox believe the same thing, and therefore it's like incongruent because of the fact that you can't have like multiple idols of a human, and then there would be the human would literally be inside the idol, and then that would cause that made me a little confused because it was like what the heck.

So well, even in the Old Testament, if you read the Benjamin Summer book, he admits that the Old Testament shows that there's a fluidity to the bodies and the embodiment of God throughout the Old Testament, in terms of the Theophanes, even to the point of multiple objects in the Old Testament like the oak of Mammary or like the stone that's anointed that Jacob Laze's head on, like all of these are examples of sacramental things even in

Well, basically the argument was that God, although he was kind of omnipresent. In the beginning, he began to reside in the tabernacle, and now he resides in the uchurs, which I don't necessarily fully believe because I think he's entirely omnipresent.

But he's also literally inside the euchurs as well. So it's just.

Really this is false either oars. So yeah, I mean, I'll let you talk. Just second, father Digon, so false either, oars, Because Jesus didn't cease to be omniscient if you read Philippians too, when he engaged in the canosis, right, So the Philippins, who's the canosis passes where he willfully limits himself to be in a mode of being born as

Digon, Well, I was gonna say.

Even just kind of Greek metaphysics, he can get an idea. For example, there's one form of triangle writing triangle or something like that that transcends space and times, let's say it. But there's many instances of that one form in particular material in stantiations, which is kind of like you were saying, like the mode.

So this is why it's really important.

It's not completely analogous, but this is why it's really important, whether it's what you were talking with the individual prior or this a notion of kind of Greek metaphysics and philosophy kind of.

It breaks up and clears the way from these things being kind of hang ups. Do you see what I'm saying.

So what I'm saying is that that particular triangle, even though there's one form of triangle, doesn't mean that the triangle itself.

Is omni present. Does that make sense?

Uh?

Yeah, sort of.

So there's many triangles, right, they're all triangles. That doesn't mean triangle is omnipresence, right yeah.

Okay, Well, because I believe that christis in the Eucharist, and also God can be outside of the eu Christ.

At the same time too, But like obviously.

My prophe is kind of out to lunch on some things, which is okay, but yeah, that was just what really confused me about it. Because saints, at the end of the day are human and not God.

So I want to.

Another either or jam.

I always bring this up that Christ is God in one sense, is on the presence, right, he transcends all space and time, is the divine person and having the divine essence. But Christ walking on the road to in Jerusalem is not.

In essence. Do you see what I mean? Yeah? Yeah, yeah, So it's it makes this kind of either or it's like, well, he has a special mode in.

The physical person of Jesus of Nazareth such that he is actually in Jerusalem and not in athletes well, at the same time, in a different respect, because he's divined, he is omnipresent, and so likewise with the saints too, is that yeah, there's a physical but they're also united with with God, and so they have properties that would transcend normal physical properties.

Being in the particular icon or when they were living, et cetera.

Yeah, again, Revelation five through nine, you'll see that the saints on earth are aware of and know what's going on with the Church militant the Church on earth, and they pray for them. So again it's the Bible itself that's telling us that the saints in heaven are involved in the earthly worship of the Church and know what's going on, and so Protestants yourself typically think of the Book of Revelation as a liturgical book or that is, describing an actual heavenly worship service.

I was raised Protestant, and I've gone to some Orthodox churches, and the most difficult thing for me to logically reconcile is the involvement of Mary or the Theotokos and the principle of intercession. I guess my feeling about it, or the way that I interpret that, is that it seems like it implies a kind of lackadaisicalness about God, or that his judgment or decisions to you know, affect somebody's life could be changed through the kind of like willful suggestion of this other being.

I mean, does that not happen in the Old Testament when God tells Amos that had you not interceded for Israel, I would have destroyed them. But because you're my friend and I respect you, you interceded for Israel. I choose to answer your prayers. So it's that God wills to descend to or seem me to condescend to respond reciprocally to our prayers. And I just pointed out to the previous girl. Revelation five or nine shows the saints in

If that were the case, I guess I'm just curious when it says that no one comes to the Father except through me, I guess that's somewhat in reference to salvation or something like that.

But it well, all the all the saints are part of the Communion of Saints, and so they're coming to God through Christ. As well, So it's not apart from Christ.

What do you mean, I guess I mean, like us as people who are not saints, just regular people.

It seems odd to have like.

A alternative route to have your life, like again improved upon or something, given that one particular verse like no one comes to the Father except through me.

So does that verse exclude all the other verses? I mean? And when in Revelation eight, when the angels are offering the prayers of the saints, is that contradicting the verse in John fourteen six?

I mean, I don't know. That's why I called in, Like I said, this is this is a.

Little we don't take one verse and we don't. So it's a Protestant heretical approach to take one verse and squeeze all the other texts into that one. You have to harmonize all the texts.

Right, Okay? Because salvation's the source of salvation, is the Trinity a triadic.

That that's going to that that notion of community is going to be played.

Out in the world too.

You're going to see salvation triadically within a community in people too, and not just two people or you know, one or one cause let's say, well, it's just it's just God.

So I would I would say, it's this.

Notion of just me and Jesus is actually anti trinitarian.

Yeah, and that's a great point, is it's not trinitarian. Also, it's like when Paul says to Timothy, you know, if you act well, you will save those around you.

All.

I guess he's distracting from the salvation in Christ. Paul's telling that that Timothy is an idol because he saves people and Christ doesn't. No, it's obviously it means through Christ, your co workers with God, Paul says. Paul even says that he fills up in his body the measure of what is lacking in the suffering of Christ.

So I've got an argument with a couple of scriptures, an analogy to illustrate the point, a specific relevant historical event, and a follow up question and a bonus question. So if I could, I like to go through all of that and then get your feedback. So the argument would be that the normative authority of the churches has limits. Specifically, the churches do not have the authority to remove other churches from the church. The analogy would be the churches

I could do follow up question or keep going, all right.

First of all, it's a false analogy that because Paul says to the Corinthians that the hand can't say to the arm or eyes or whatever. I don't need you to equate that to no normative authority excommunicating anybody in the universal Church. That doesn't follow from that. The only ways by which people would be excommunicated is by living authorities. Who have the ability to excommunicate, which actually Paul says to the Corinthians put out of the church those who

Yeah, that was just, you know, an analogy to maybe illustrate the point, but you definitely got the point. Follow up question, if I may are there limits to normitive authority regarding ex communication of any kind based.

On what you just said.

Sure, yeah, I mean did John Crystalson was an he sent out of Oak? He was falsely excommunicated. So yeah, that doesn't mean that everything a local bishop does is going to be right or authoritative, I mean right or infallible, should.

Say, I guess I'm thinking more like.

Not specific ex communications, but more like wholesale.

You know, what do you mean this this whole church?

Like you mentioned the Arian thing, but specifically like Chalcedon. It's a disagreement about Christology, I guess. And so I guess is there a principle in play? Where is there a principle that guides what's valid excommunication and what would be invalid excommunication? Like things Christology is definitely grounds for ex communication, practice of ordination is not grounds like is there kind of a guiding principle there of things that escalate to that level.

I don't know what you mean by practice of ordination? What I mean just.

A random example? I mean it could be. So.

I think that the way it's supposed to work is that an Orthodox bishop is the highest authority strictly speaking, and he interprets the canons for the churches under his jurisdiction and applies those rules in an informed, wise way, not an illegalistic, rigid way, but in a way that is for the best of the flock and for their salvation. So could he abuse it? Yes, there could be an abusive bishop, but I think the idea is that eventually it would be rectified in time, that God would vindicate

Could you say, dis repeat it against her?

I was writing that, I was writing three different arguments to three different people, three different times.

My quantum.

Ask Father Dicon. He's had much more involvement with bishops and clergy than I have, so he would be much better for this question. Than me.

I think, I think, I think I know what you're saying about. Go ahead, So yeah, it would just be limits to normative authority. I think I understand.

You know, within a jurisdiction, the bishop is the authority that decide what happens.

And then your local bishop. Yeah. If if a whole.

Congregation under a bishop is collectively an error, then the only other place to refer to is a collection of bishops, which would be a council.

Yeah. I mean, just just think about it. We do have a secular.

Notion normative authority, which interesting enough, is based off a Byzantine law, So our legal system traces back to principles and Byzantine law. But you certainly have a nor normative authority, and that just means legally binding. So at what at a county level, I guess you have judges, and then your state has a supreme court, a state supreme court.

And then your nation has a then at the highest level is scotus. This is the United States.

Yeah, So to take to take that analogy, I guess it comes down to interpretation. Because you could argue that the Constitution lays out the Bill of rights, those things are not up for debate under the normative authority of.

Well, it's a different issue, so.

Of course the Constitution's open to uh interpretation with a separate issue. The difference is my interpretation isn't law. So I might get it right, I might get it wrong. The judge might get a right or wrong. But the difference is it's binding on me. Now there's an appeals. Well, what happens when the judge does bad law? It's still law. You can't just say, well, that's not what the the law says that I don't have to obey it. You're under the law of that judge. There's an appeals and

But the issue is, yeah, is there anybody that can lay this out as law?

That's what normative authority needs. So if a bishop get something wrong and they have let's even think the priest in some sense is has a normative legal authority over you.

They can get it right do you where do you go to settle this?

So there's a different issue like what's how do I know the right answer? Versus how is it legally or coleasily settled? And you go up a court of appeals, like you go to the bishop.

What happens when the bishop.

Is getting the way he would be subject to the right.

He's subject to the synop So that's a local senate. What happens if you know the synops it eventually would go to the A largers right eventually all the way up to Boy Commendment right all of all the entire church, in which case, there we see through scripture the Holy Spirit is present.

And works, and.

We would say it that level there's an infallibility. But there's a separate issue going on, like how do we resolve disputes?

How does the legal.

Structure work within the church. Well, it's a court of appeals. It goes up, but it doesn't mean that it's not it's not law. It's just we have different levels of normal, Like some things are more binding right you can keep going up, and things at lower levels can be challenged and ecumenical council cannot because it's the entire Church and that is the Holy Theirs Christ.

Or nowadays it would be some type of pan Orthodox synod, but that cannot easily be done given the geopolitical situation of the time. And there's been situations in the history of the Church where geopolitical situations prevented ecumenical councils as well,

Because I want to make it clear that it's not just simply a mechanical or robotic life. W If I just do these things and say these words or put.

These people together, then it makes the magic happen.

Right, then that's the Holy Spirit, it's Jay's wright.

Obviously, it cannot be an ecumenical council if it's not in line with theology of the Church.

If it's not received by the church, if.

The capital Holos is not working as cata Holos, it can't be capta holos.

Yeah, like the Palamite Synods were Byzantine councils, which the entire Orthodox world basically I'm as far as unaware of firms. So for all intents and purposes, we can call those ecumenical councils the eighth and the Ninth, even though they may not technically be Waitumena based councils in terms of the whole imperium. The rest of the world over the centuries has adopted those for all intentsive purposes, they're infallible pan Orthodox councils.

Yeah, thanks, appreciate your time.

Last question, I wrote a small book on symbolism and film.

I'd like to send you a copy if you'd like. What's the best way to send you.

Something like that? You could send me a DM and I'll give you a po box if you want to send me a book. Appreciate that.

Thanks.

I want to remind you guys too, that coming up in uh let's see six days, we're under a week big awesome live event January nineteenth here in Florida, Tampa. It'll be our first movie convention. We're going to this horror convention. I'm invited to speak on the dark Secrets of Horror Movies. So I will be given us a Terry Hollywood presentation the first thirty ticket holders. It may be sold out. If it's not, I'm not sure exactly where we are on tickets. First thirty get a free

Get dirt on my family. I'm like, you go that way.

Get some dirt and blackmail and brot. And I'm just joking. I mean, you know, if they're if they shun you, then you can't control that. You know, if they shun you for believing the deed of Christ, I mean, then you know, count that as a blessing. Jesus says. But I don't think we have to work to try to get people to be mad at us. I think you know, if you just affirm the deed of Christ, they're going to be mad at you no matter what. Nick Bond five dollars, How do I locate the link about Anglicanism?

Uh?

I've not done full videos. There was a crazy dude who lost his marbles. And like went ape on me for he was a Jungian dude. It's funny because I bring up aon, which is what you're talking about, because in aon, Carl Jung says that Jesus is anti Christ and they're the same their flip sides of the same coin. So this Jungian gnostic dude has a meltdown when we start debating this, and he's like, you've never even read Young,

Jay?

I was trying to make the argument for compatibilism in terms of when it comes to communism and predestination or knowledge.

I guess my argument for that would be that.

As a Christian, I realized that I don't have the knowledge God has in determining who's are his and who's are not, But.

Based on the doctrine, I do trust.

The the faith I have in knowing that whoever I want to, you know, work.

With as far as like a brother in Christ.

I feel like compatibilism, which would argue against Armenianism, would be a better argument because I feel like with our minionism, you have this ah.

You.

It's based on what your instincts think tell you who you can or can't trust, and so that's that's why I feel.

Like, I mean, I don't know what. None of this has anything to with proving or distriving Calvinism because Calvinism is disproven by Christology. Calvinism relies on a soteriology doctrine that's ahead of Christology. Christology is an afterthought and it ends up saying that Christ has to be damned for you to be saved. Do you believe that? No?

I In terms of Calvinism, it's it's more of this has to do with eternal, eternal elections, so it's obviously is salvation.

It's metaphysical.

Uh, it's more of a you determining whether or not you're part of God's elect and in terms of like our interactions with each other on earth.

You know, it's it's difficult to are.

You arguing for Calvinism, I don't understand.

Yeah, I'm arguing for Calvinism in the sense that you know, in my in my experience, you know, I've gone through, you know, especially during the pandemic, I had a lot of you know, betrayal and just.

A lot of people that abandoned me.

But you know, grasping on my faith in Christ, I realized that those things were predetermined and that moving forward, in order to.

In order to display works that go.

Along with faith, I have to trust my Christian brothers.

Okay, but that sounds more like a personal issue, and I would just say, go check out my theological critiques of Calvinism. So I'm sorry that you have betrayal, but I don't see how personal betrayal and then accepting that God was the direct cause of all those events somehow pers Calvinism. It seems like a very subjective to take, but I'm arguing that Calvinism has many, many mistakes that are more severe than whether there's free will versus predestination.