This is not a very spy centric song. This is like a loud song. I want spy shit, dude, there we go, there we go. Give me some sixties spy stuff going, give me in the mood, give my vibes. Right, you know what I'm saying. Now, what I'm saying. Welcome to another late night stream. Today we're going to focus on problems in Protestanism and why Protestantism is false overallhem but we will also be welcoming calls from Catholics, Mormons, Charismatics,
you name it. Any group that has various theological positions is welcome to call in that they take issue with. Right, if you feel like you would like to set me straight, tonight is your knight. You can call it. And yeah, if you want to talk about all the classic issues PSA,
blah blah blah, we'll let you do it. I will also kind of intermittently comment on other topics issues clips relevant to today, including Wes huff coming at me right or as I should say, running away, not coming at me, going away from me, because the Protestants as a whole, it seems, are actually on the run. We've seen both DAWA and the Roman Catholics sphere pretty much collapse in terms of their apologetic approach. Dhahwa pretty much died last year when we did the sam Shamun Fresh and Fit
debate with Hikikachu and he Jaws. We've not seen any significant debate challenges. Jake's done a few debates. Jake's pretty much the last of the Muslim debaters, and as I predicted, Rouslan has run from the debate. Although he admitted four times he wanted to do one, it was willing to do one. Now he demands I publicly apologize to his satisfaction and repent to him. I think Ruslan's got him and God mixed up. Like Rouslan seems to think that, as he named his channel, you can bless God, as
of Godd needs a blessing or has some lack. Ruslan believes people w need to repent to him. Uh No, dude, I don't know what you're talking about. Rouselan believes that people should defer to him. He calls the shots when it comes to flexing channels, and I don't believe any of it. So I'm an atheist when it comes to Ruslanianism. I do not recognize the existence of Ruslan's spiritual auth already.
So tonight is not mainly Ruslan as a topic, though I want to talk some about everybody's favorite Protestant apologist or what's left of him, who also now will not debate anyone. He is also removed himself from any debates. In fact, I don't even really think he did, like maybe one or two and they weren't even really Maybe he did more and I'm just not aware of it.
But Galvin Orland and his interesting background when it comes to his dad, and the relationship to Christianity today, which I think is very sus So we're going to talk about some of that and the evangelical not just the griff sphere, but the sus sphere. Who is behind these people, who's funding these people? Does Christianity today have that kind of fed connection? Of course it does, of course it does. So we're gonna be talking about some of that today.
The sort of evangelical mouthpiece of the Pentagon and the CIA establishment, much like we discussed for many, many years, way before Queen Kwondas did it. We talked about groups like TPUSA or evangelical ministries like Campus Crusade. Essentially being
arms of the military industrial complex. They began actually out of the Pentagon if you don't know that, that's the actual history of campus crusade, and a plethora of evangelical groups actually do have a very close connection to cutouts, fronts, etc. You saw, for example, all over the news today vindicating myself, who's talked about this also for over ten years, radical fringe groups right like the neo in groups, the Christian identity groups which were essentially behind Eloheim City and the
McVeigh event. We've talked about many cults having connections to intelligence agencies, shady suss funding and lo and behold, turns out we are vindicated. The allegations of the Department of Justice today are that multiple fake right wing entities were not just informed with or excuse me, infiltrated with informants, but we're actually run by significant amounts of money, including in the millions of dollars to a host of fake
right wing front groups. In this case, it was not directly the FBI or the FEDS per se running in this case, it was the SPLC. Now, the SPLC has included large backing from George Soros, JP Morgan Chase, George Clooney and Open AI. So all of these mega leftist entities have obviously put significant amounts of money over the years into the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has then utilized that money to help fund and control the fake opposition.
We have been saying this actually for twenty years, back to the Big Nine event, because we argued back then that the groups that were used, such as al Qaeda, had a long time Western intelligence relationship and sort of cut out proxy status on record. Same with the nineteen ninety three event, and with many terror events. Not necessarily every every event, but in many cases that was the case. And now we've seen also explicitly, as I told people
in twenty seventeen, I would not go to Charlottesville. That would be a massive fed honey trap situation. I told people on live streams at the time not to do it. Lo and behold, who's vindicated? I am. I knew what I was talking about. Do you think I just make these things up. I've been reading about these subjects for over twenty years. All the books that you see behind me, they're not just a set piece. I'm not like Michael Lofton with a bunch of fake books behind me that
I've never touched. I actually read the books. You see all the sticky notes. I don't just stick them in there to make it look like i've read them. I read these books, and I have for over twenty years. And it's not just the domain of co intel and espionage and all that kind of stuff and geopolitics. I also read the theology books. Those books are also very well read. So that's ultimately why people don't want to
come over here and have civil formal debates. It has nothing to do with my jokes or a four letter word here and there. That's all ploy that's all smoke and mirror's excuse. And they know that. They know that because we have organized countless formal civil debates all over the place with Muslims, with atheists, with cult leaders, et cetera. You name. It very easy to set up a debate, it's not hard. But these are all pearl clutching excuses to not interact. And I don't care whose channel it's on.
It doesn't have to be on rous Lawn channel. In fact, I don't ever want to go on Rousselann channel. I don't care about Rousselance channel. So I told them I'll debate you on a tiny channel with no followers. That way, everybody can see that we're not doing it for the click, although I think Ruslan definitely does it for the clicks. For example, we notice that these people's standards are never
applied consistently. When Rouslan said that he will not interact with people that are toxic or whatever other such nonsense he said, notice that it doesn't apply to the very thing he said about me. Though, I only want to debate people with bigger channels. I just debated Captain Crackrock twice. He has a much smaller channel than me. I'm debating a Protestant pastor in a couple of weeks who has basically no Internet following. We're doing it all modern day debate.
So no, I don't just debate people formally with a large following, although everybody in the sphere would like to debate a larger following person because it gives him exposure. So he's acting like this is some thing unique to just me, And here he is wanting to interact, begging for nick flints, attention and clout so that he can get a bigger channel and a bigger presence. Looking at him, the very thing he said is all. So he basically
is projecting everything that he does. Is what he accuses me of because he assumes that we the same, we get the same mind fram we ain't the same.
Son.
I don't care about your flex and I don't care about your channel.
But it's interesting that our audiences overlap. But I'm here for it. I'm here for it. As long as long as he's willing to have a conversation, I'm here for it. I got I got no, I got no gripes with having a conversation with him. But it's it's interesting that our audience.
Oh wait, those audiences don't overlap. What the hell are you talking about? That audience ain't watching your dumb ass What are you talking about? Nonsense? Yeah, Rouselm is a narcissist. I'm gonna show you his stupid ass churches, his fake business churches. Sermon. Remember bragging about his sermons the other day? You realize, so just preached like three sermons of my church.
So you realize I've just preached sermons as if anybody cares about your stupid sermons, as if we're impressed by that. Oh oh dude, was that business church, and he was sermonize, oh shit, I better back down. I better showed this. I'll put I better put some respect on this man. Now his actual church, which he publicly says for you people, he's dog should to be dogs. He publicly talks about
his church on his podcast. He mentioned in his last video people probably didn't catch it because it's such a stupid ass name for a church. You probably thought he was talking about his R and B group or his hip hop group when he said, I go to Rhythm Church. Yes, that's right, it's called Rhythm Church. You can't make this up based around lame ass beats. So here he is at Rhythm Church. He preaching up there to Rhythm Church.
Doll.
I like how Rhythm Church, by the way, has a podium, an ugly ass damn corporate style chair, a computer and that's it. But they also put a little bit of image free stained glass windows to make it look churchy. Do hey, look, this looked too much like an AMN lecture. Hall put a little bit of stained glass up in here to make it a little bit of churchy. Yes, it's called Rhythm Church. You can't make this up. Okay, So this is what rus lines right, he was. This
is what he was all bragging about. Do flexing. You realize, well just preached three times looking about church, right, you realize I am a preacher. I'm not joking. To check this out. Let's see this. Let's see this awesome mad cap sermonizing.
Right.
Hell, all right, one more time. Give it up for the amazing worship team.
Everybody who so dudes preaching wearing a T shirt for his book. And you're trying to tell me it's not business church now, he said, imagine the apostles thinking of the Orthodox Church was the true church. The Apostles and their church looks nothing like the accretions of the Orthodox Church. Roussel It says, Meanwhile, Rouse line, God, a damn uh looks like a a damn factory worker back there on bass guitar. We got a we got a farm boy back there on bass guitar. Rooselin's got a a T
shirt for his book doing sermons now. Clearly, Rhythm and Blues R and B Church. Clearly R and B Church is what the Apostles had in mind. You're trying to tell me Peter wasn't over there busting it down like Prince right. You tell me Peter wasn't over there doing a little bit of I'll be sure you tell me
that the Apostles didn't set up Rhythm Church. So the dude calling us out of line with the post Apostolic fathers the first century goes to rapper Rhythm Church and wears t shirts about his book up on a stage, no altar, a stage. Yes, that's clearly the true shirt.
It's serving behind the scenes.
So how many guys know where we've been parked in the last years, all of twenty twenty five?
What book have we've been in? That's right? And I was looking.
At last week at what was talked about in Acts this week, and I said, Jeff, this is this is really good.
I want to I want to preach this part.
Oh he going back to the origins of the church br the Book of Acts. Right. Let me ask you a question, Roseline, Where in the Book of Acts do you see a bass guitar? Where do you see a stage? This man up on stage, this is the grifter over here trying to say that we aren't Apostolic and this is the church his his dumb ass is at And Jeff said, now, bro, oh, look they do have a stained glass that does have an image. Okay. I was getting a little nervous because I was like, they just
got stained pretty colors. Well they got one image. Okay, so we're at least not iconoclast.
I got this. I want it for myself. I said, all right, so we're gonna do something fun. We're gonna we're actually gonna Last week, do you remember where where Paul was an action?
Where was he?
Yeah, he went over to Rhythm Church. Paul went over there. Punks pod people don't know. Paul was a damn beat boxer. Paul could be box at best with the best of them. Gospel Church, Gospels Church, That's what the Apostles was up to.
Son traveling through the church in ephsis So we're gonna.
Spile in the book of CS. Let me ask you a courtion.
Stay in Ephesians today, and we're gonna talk about something that I think is so relevant. So if you turn your bibles to Ephesians chapter one with me.
Why they got sadass piano music playing while he talking. I ain't going on somebody's low ass number stream. I ain't going on his dumb stream. Those people can call in here I'm not going on a two hundred one subscribers stream. Why are you wasting my time?
Then?
Boys? Is all in the orbit? Then a bunch of gay orbiters of roost lines. You think I'm gonna go on gay orbiter rouse lines people's stream. No, they can come over here. By the way, I'm doing them a favor because all they want is a clip farm. All they wants attention them dummy stream about me every two weeks. So no, I'm not giving them what they want. But although I will give them what they want because they can come over here and they can call in and
they can get their dumb clips. That's all they do. Y'all not realize that people just want clips. You think I'm scared that dude called in. I asked him to call in and debate me on Intercession of the Saints, and he did so. How am I scared? You're about to just get booty. You're wasting everybody's huh, y'all are just scared because I'm making fun of your dumb cult leader ruse Line r u Se ruse Line and his dumb uh Rhythm and Blue R and B.
Church Ephesians, Chapter one, Chapter one, Verse three, I'm reading out of the NIV.
It says, Oh, praise be to.
Be over there in the n IV. He over there in that n I b right. He ain't got the KGB Bible. He ain't got the KGV Bible. He got the NIB Bible. Yo. You got the NIB, bro, you got that Pigeon Bible, or you got a e Bonics Bible.
Yo.
I think we need to send Ruslana e Bonics Bible. Then maybe his dumba ass could read it.
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with Averyka.
Now, I'm not doing a performative, fake ass prayer. We've done. Get that gay crap out of my face, dude, with this performative prayer. I wish I had known all this before I even went on his cringe ass podcast. Also to change the subject to get over here to the calls. We did have some. I had a couple people reaching
out to Doug Wilson. I didn't do it. It's another person that organized an event with me a year ago, and he's reached out to Doug Wilson, he says in multiple emails and Originally there was a planned potential discussion and debate. It started, I want to say, maybe six months ago, and I was busy at the time, and I said, why don't we see if you could get you know,
father Deacon to do it. I've got a little bit too much going on right now to do a debate with Doug Wilson, although we did also try in that three way debate with me and Tim Gordon and the Lower Lodge dude. Originally the Protestant was going to be Doug Wilson, but I don't know if he canceled or just didn't want to do it, or they just never got into say, But then it turned into a potential other debate with FDA that never came to fruition. So I told the guy, I said, hey, Tingu says, I
sent you a message on picture app to my Instagram. Uh, basically, I want to say that I'm grateful and for you bringing me back to the faith after running from it. If you read my message, I greatly be appreciated. God bless you all.
Well.
Thank you Tingu. He sends a big old fat Hunters one hundred dollars superch. I appreciate it. I didn't know that you can't say the word instagram. That's odd. I didn't know, crash Meta says. When Rouselan was asked about why he won't debate Jay but he would talk to Nick Flints, he says, because Nick Quintus is a pagan. Rouselan is just insane, dude. This dude is just cra I mean, none of the shit he says actually even
makes it. I figured out that, Like, there's no point in even trying to make sense of what Rouselan's thinking is saying. I think he's just crashed out for real, Like I think there's something else going on. I mean, everybody wants to overuse this term crash out. I think something weird is going on with Rusalom. I don't know since their Hypocrette says, step aside Apostolic Church, we got Rhythm Church up in here, boy, That's what I'm saying.
How do we know the original Apostolic Church wasn't Rhythm church? Can you prove it wasn't exactly exactly? You can't? Can you? There? We go? Of course you can, But I'm being silly. I mean, this is the dude that has the gumption to talk about how we are the ones that departed from the early church. Dude that goes to damn rhythm and blues church. Wait, Walter Schmidt, what's up? I'm mute, Walter Schmidt. I'm mute.
Hey, j Yeah, how do I sound? Can you tell me?
You sound sexy and amazing?
That's good to hear it.
The thing is, I want to do spaces myself and I'm kind of figuring.
This stuff out with the equipment. But yeah, I just wanted to say hi. I'm I'm I don't really want to debate you. I pretty much agree with everything you say.
Okay, Yeah, stuff with Rustlin is crazy.
I'm glad that it finally is coming out.
I never really watched him, but that guy is really weird.
It's something it's it's something weird going on for sure.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, but yeah, I just wanted to say hi.
And you know, it's really interesting to see how well the.
Different spirit in the Orthodox.
Apologetics, the Catholic apologetics, the Protestant apologetics, the Muslims.
The Orthodox are the only one that have like a warrior spirit, like never liked ever.
Yeah, well, all the other ones are gay. The rest of them are gay. They even are. I mean, the Proston churches are pretty much all gay.
Yeah, I mean literally, even I saw what happened with you and Nick frent Is.
It's such a shame. I mean, you had a great debate back then, and I watched it a couple of years ago, and I thought it was very interesting. I mean, it was very cordial on both sides.
But now he's like scared and I like Nick flint Is, He's like an interesting guy.
He's he's pushing the boundaries all that.
But it's such a shame that he just doesn't want to interact with you.
Well.
I mean, Nick said the other day on one of his streams, I just saw the clip that Vatican two did go off the rails. So that's really just admitting the thing I've been trying to convey to him for ten years. So, Bruce, what's up? Thank you for that call? Dog said it. Bruce, how you doing? Go ahead? What's up?
Hey?
Man?
I really been listening to a lot.
Re release really.
Helped me out with a lot of things.
I'm a Protestant right now, but I'm trying to figure out there's two things.
I don't know what's more interesting to you. I've said a union people.
So to share Toeman or pre subpositional apologetics and the Canon scripture, which one's more.
Interesting to you?
Either one is fine, all right, So.
Let's first talk about like the Cannon descripture and pre substantional apologetics. Why do you think it is, like you're you're a student of Boston Seminary and.
Obviously well read on Van Hill, right, Well, why do you think it is that they missed this?
Well, there are several reasons. I mean, they were not, to my knowledge, even familiar with anything from Orthodox Christian theology at all. It's really only been in this last several years that you know, Orthodox christianities theology presidence has
even been kind of out there. I mean one of the first books was in the two thousands, right where you had I forget that guy's names, Daniel McClellan or mcmc something, and he wrote a book about Orthodox pros and Catholic views and he was like an evangelical guy. And that was in the early mid two thousands, and that was kind of one of the first books that even exposed a lot of people in the West. So Bonson dying in the late nineties or whatever, and Van
till earlier than that. I mean, they just weren't even familiar with the in the stale.
Logical problem here with regard to the lens by which they you'll effectively get caught by begging the question using the scripture that I'm able to justify the use of the scripture in the first.
Place, Well, it's I mean, they're the ones that pioneered the idea that it's an argument for an entire paradigm. And if you're going to go that line of argument, then the paradigm needs to make sense. It can't just be, you know, something grounded in a book. It's got to be more than that, because the book itself comes from
a paradigm, from a miliu, from a community. So I think that they missed, for example, there's certain metaphysical implications that go along with TAG that relate to the Trinity. That's something that I pushed quite a bit of the last ten years. So in other words, you could say that they worked in trans in augmentation. But if their conception of the deity was sufficiently heterodox and wrong, then
the argument is only going to go so far. If you're saying that the Christian God is the foundation of morals, ethics, and metaphysics, a human morals, bismology, metaphysics, So you better have the right doctrine of God. So I think, combined with other Reformation distinctives like the doctrine told depravity and that there's you know, perpetual noetic effects of sin that constantly sort of put you in a a spiral of never having the type of certitude the tag allegedly is
supposed to give you. People highlighting and bringing these points to the four for many many years, which were ignored. For example, I highlighted, I highlighted a lot of these arguments and points to John Frame and to Douglas Jones from the Wilson circles years ago, and a lot of those people would just try to ignore it. So again I think there's many things going on. Also, Protestantism is a form of prelust. It's a it's a situation where you you, you are the real arbiter of everything and
you're the one that decides over everyone else. And although it claims that it's scripture, it's not. It's really you and scripture and you're the final arbiter.
Yeah, that's been the problem I've been coming up against as well, and thanks for that man.
And so going forwards, the PSA issue at stake an issue I feel like there's either a semantic issue or a literal theological issue where it seems as though people that are proponents of substitutionaryatment.
Are creating a third category of Christ.
I don't know if that makes sense, but they're basically saying that he doesn't actually have the same nature we have, and therefore he can't be a substitute because his nature is without sin, but ours is the noetic effects of sin. And so I don't see how that's an actual substitute if indeed he is a substitute, and he must be the same as us in some sense, at least the human side of his nature.
Right, there's multiple problems, multiple problems going on there. First of all, I'm not heard of Protestant saying this. I'm not saying that they haven't said that, but usually and usually they say that Christ does have the same nature as us, and that's why he's able to, you know, to die in our place as a substitute. But the fact that he assumes a sinless human nature doesn't mean that it's not the same nature as ours, because sin isn't something that's Sin isn't a nature, And that's another
mistake Protestants make. Sin is a deprivation of grace or an act of a will against the good. It's not a state of being. It's not an ontological status. So they're actually being Manichean if they think that sin has ontological existence or evil has existence.
Yeah, so it doesn't fit together.
Well if they say that man's nature is indeed painted entirely.
Yeah, it's Manichein. That would be Manichean. That we mean God creates evil natures, which doesn't make sense because evil doesn't have a nature. Evil is a privation or a predatory act against nature. So for us, evil is the act of the will against the good. It's not a thing that has being or substance. But they collapse nature into person. So that's how they get the idea that we're all damned and atom because our whole nature is quote a sin nature that is inherently guilty of sin,
because we're children of atom. That's why they think infants are damned. That we don't believe them, So then.
You don't adhere to the doctrine of original sin, at least you wouldn't articulate it that way.
What you call it ancestral then.
And that's to distinguish between the deprivation that results from Adam's sin, whereby we are deprived of grace. That's not the same thing as having actual guilt, which you accrue when you commit a sin. So infants don't commit actual sins because they don't have the use of their reasoning
to act against God's will. That's why James says that sin when it gives birth and it is assented to, he says evil when it is when it gives birth, when it times with the passions and the concupis sense, when it's assented to it, he says it's a sin. So he actually specifies that it's not the desires that themselves are the sin. It's the assent of the will
to an illicit or disordered desire. And what Protestants do and have done since the Reformation, due to a misunderstanding of Romans five, is that they think that our nature itself is a sin, and they think it's a state of being, But it can't be a state of being when it's a deprivation.
Yeah, so they've gotten the power totally wrong.
That and there is no real ontology and Protestantism correct.
Yeah.
So as far as like book recommendations might go for this particular issue with regards to the Union, what might you recommend outside of course like no Chalcedonian Council and canons or you know the story.
No, I can tell you exactly what you need to read. You need to read uh st Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy because when I read that book and I understood that Jesus is a divine subject and that there's no human hypostasis in Christ, it led me to understand fully why there could never be a PSA.
This seems to me to like undercut the entire the entire West.
If that's true, probably, I mean it doesn't just begin with you know, Lutheran Calvin. Uh it goes back to Anselm and satisfaction theory.
So yeah, yeah, yeah, the legal theory as well, all that sort of work.
Absolutely well.
Well, thanks a lot, Jamen, that's the luck to you. I appreciate all that you do.
Yeah, anytime. Also, I would say there's another side accessory book that would help. That's good and that's written by a Lutheran guy, and it's called Harvest of Medieval Theology from Gabriel Auckham, Akham and Bile to Luther ific at the exec title. But he's a Lutheran who wrote about the fact that you have to be a nominalist philosophically
to have Luther's doctrine of justification in PSA. And if you can point out that successfully that I think you can, that the ancient and medieval world or the ancient and Patristic world was not nominalist, then that means that Luther's doctrine is impossible in the first one thousand years of Christianity.
I think Luther is just an obnstadium monk, right, So how did he be wrong?
Well, I mean, I know you're joking, but I mean, I mean, even if I'm just saying, even if we granted that Luther was right in some of the critiques of Rome, it's like, yeah, but what But if Luther's argument of how we are changing from a state of divine wrath to a legal state of divine grace, if it's dispositional, that requires a certain philosophical framework called nominalism, which divorces the essence of things from the names given
to them. And so Luther made use of Oakham and Gabriel Bile to figure out how God could call someone righteous when they're in fact an actuality wicked, and he uses nominalism in the philosophical system. According to Haiko Oberman, very famous Lutheran scholar and historian to say that this
is how Luther did it. He uses this systemic approach. Now, if nobody in the first thousand years a Christianity was a nominalist, which is what's required for a purely legal status justification, then we know that Paul, Saint Paul in the Church Fathers aren't teaching anything like Luther. Yeah, yeah, that.
Seems to the.
Well.
Thanks a lot, man, I really appreciate it.
Absolutely. Yeah, keep keep reading and keep searching. You you're on your way to orthodoxy. Robotic, what's up? No, I'm not going on his channel, so stop asking me. I'm talking to the chat robot, you know what I mean. Oh, yes, sir, Hey, thanks for having me. I'm can you speak up a little bit. I can barely hear you speaking to the mic. Oh sorry, can you hear me there now a little bit?
Uh?
Sorry, shoot.
Yeah, just talk into the to the mic, dude, you hear me?
Now?
We'll try go ahead at that.
Yeah, I'm I'm.
Not the folks you were talking about. And I can't even hear you. Dude, I don't know what what kind of a micro are you using? Dude?
Yeah, it's like my boozy earphones.
I'm sorry.
Let me Uh, I might have a bit.
I can hear you a little better now, but you just need to talk directly into the mic. We can barely hear you, all right, Sorry about that. Well, now you're far away and I can't hear you. So yeah, I don't know what's happened, and I really am not really.
Shoot.
Uh can you hear me?
Now?
We'll try. Oh yeah, I'm.
I'm a Protestant. I listened to a lot of the content at the shore.
Think it's really good, and I'm honestly.
Just trying to.
I mean, I can't. I'm sorry, man, I can't hear you. Try to get to a good mic. It's just we can't even hear you. You're there and then you're gone for like five seconds and then you're back. So try to find a good mic. No, I'm not going to some randos fifty person in live stream? Why would I do that? I'm doing my live stream. I'm not If they want a clip farm, they can come be on this stream. Smokey, what's up? Stop asking me? Or I'm just going to boo you smoky?
Yes, that's try.
How's it going, good man? What's on your mind?
Good I just wanted to see if you would give me just less than sixty seconds to present an argument to justify going and having a chat with Moler.
Well you want the debate about me going to his stream?
Well, not a debate, just to presenting an argument.
Well, if you're presenting an argument, that's a debate. What if you're presenting an argument, then that's part of a debate. So that's right. If they want to dude, if they want to clip, if they want a clip farm, they can just hop on here right now.
Well yeah, but I mean, Jay, that's that's not really fair what they want to do.
And you're the king of.
Clip Why is that not from channels.
To do that for you? So, I mean you know it's all a clip farm. It all grows a brand, right.
Oh So now now you know the motives and I'm just clip for me.
Well, I mean, you do encourage channels to build off of clips of things that you've done in the past, and debates and things like that.
I know you do that for a reason.
Because you like to get your name out there and your interactions so people can see your talents and your numbers grow.
I'm not faulting you for it. It's playing the game.
And did I fault them? I said, if they want a clip farm, they can come over here.
Well, I understand that.
It's just I don't understand why you wouldn't want to go ahead and expose yourself to their audience.
Concurrently, I've already been already.
I've already why you wouldn't just want to do that, and they promised they wouldn't mute you at all.
Would you give them.
The same part implying that I'm going.
To go on over and he'll give you a piece of Spaci.
Get out of here. Shut up, you're not you're talking over me. No, I'm not going to go over there because I don't want to go over there. And I already had the debate with them and they did it on there. There's no reason why they can't call in here and also stream it on their thing. The same thing applies to them, Goober. If they want to call in, they can call in on their phone and they can continue live streaming do like I'm doing in ghetto style.
They can hold the phone up to the freaking microphone I don't have. I'm not going to hook up the stream yard and then hook all of that up into obs. I'm just not doing all that. I'm doing my stream and I'm not giving these dudes. I don't respect these dudes. I'm not giving them the attention that they want on their channels. But they can clip anything they want and they can call in here and continue their stupid stream. Errol, what's up? No, it's not the movie review mall or
it's a dude that nobody even follows. It's these are the lowest tier protests are They're worst things that need God. This is all this is is that they want to That's why they stream about me every week. And they're rouse Lin's bought buddies, so they want to come on. They want to make a big stint get attention. That's why I'm not doing it. Errol, what's up, hey, j how's it going? That was up?
Yeah?
I just want to call I really been appreciate your content. That actually kind of brought me back into being a Christian gunn from being a former atheist, in no small part due to your tag formulation. I just wanted to run a quick question on the argument by you.
Okay, sure, so as I understand it, it's.
Kind of an important premise is the impossibility of the contrary world view?
My question is if you.
Consider something like platonism, so so say the atheist just assumes things like logic or the existence of the external world, or the past, all the different transcendental categories as brute facts, why would why?
Why is that?
Why can't they do that? I guess why is that impossible for them to do? The way I think about is, you know, a divine mind is a more parsimonious explanation because they're all interrelated transcendental categories. But why is it, you know, necessarily wrong for the atheists to just, you know, assume all these like this grab bag of brute facts.
Well, first of all, just assuming a grab bag of brute facts wouldn't respond to the objections that tag makes. I mean, we're not just giving a negative impossibility. The contract critique we're also presenting a positive list of our beliefs in our worldview that includes a bunch of metaphysical and ethical and historical ideas. So there's two world views that are in comparison and that are being contrasted in the argument. So brute assertions don't give us any kind
of explanatory power justification. If they can put forward brute facts in a debate, then so can you. So just saying that there's all these things therefore that's my basis. That doesn't tell me that I ought to believe those things or why those things are true. That's just saying that they are that you're just asserting things. So in the same way just saying well, I'm a platonist or whatever, like, there's so many problems in platonism in terms of basic
level contradictions. And you can go look up the critiques that we've done a platonism that for an atheist. By
the way, how could atheist be a platonist? Right? Like an atheist atheists aren't platonists typically there could be one, I suppose, But now he's going to switch from being an atheist as saying, well, but there's all these immaterial forms well, in Plato's conception, the immaterial forms really don't have or it's very difficult for him to explain what's in common between the immaterial eternal ideal form and the material changing tempore things that the forms, the things that
are copied from the forms. Right, So there's a dialectical tension between the realm of ideas and perfect stasis versus the realm of flux and change. So just saying that doesn't justify it. It's not an argument to just assert that, to just say that, well, what if it's brute facts, then if they do that, you can say, okay, well then God's a brute fact. So like you have to understand, like in a debate, people have if they can do that, you can do that.
Right.
That's why fallacies matter. It's pointing out what you what you can't do. It's like we're playing chess and somebody just knocks over all the piece and says I win. Well, then I can knock all over all the piece and say I win. It's it's it's defeats the whole purpose of a debate. Hank, what's up.
There?
These people are not even they're they're not debaters. Did These are like low tier need god level people who are just looking for some attention because they're in these here and they try to are. They stream about me every week, bitching and complaining, pearl collectioning about four letter words. It's the lowest tier stuff.
Man.
You guys are not even You're not missing anything. And they're never gonna call in because they can't act. They don't know anything. What's up, man, Hank, Hank, what's up? And all I hit their dumb audience coming over here, trying to bait me to come over. I'm not going over there.
Hey, Jake, can you hear me?
Hey man, It's been a while since I called in.
I've been busy.
I've been getting ready for my tour and my album's dropping. Dude, I just wanted to say, Man, I just want to call and say I finally found a un orthodox church man that you know. I've been attending, man, and it's all been things to guys like you, man.
So I just want to call and say.
Thank you, man, God Blas, thank you appreciate that. I thought he was joking. I thought you meant like you you were, you were pretending that you were like Ruslawn. But I appreciate it. Yeah, okay, I oh you were joking. Okay, never appreciate that, man, Hank. What's up, dude, dude? These people are there. It's I'm telling you man, they're just coming up with drama to get attention. They couldn't. They wouldn't last five minutes in a real discussion. We already
debated them. We had a forty minute debate on the Intercession of the Saints with him a year ago. I'm not going on their dumb stream yard stream. They can call in here and they can keep streaming, and they can clip it all they want. I don't care. I'm not going to end my stream and go on their stream. What's up, Mandlson, what's up? Go ahead?
Okay? I have a question from a local Orthodox church.
How would I were are some key signs to know that they're engaging in.
Any level of pedadoxy I guess.
I mean the key signs would be like, are they teaching a humanism? Are they teaching pro gay stuff? Are they teaching I mean, are they teaching anything that's against the you know, the creed or basic Christian morals? Usually they don't, you know, these kinds of groups don't just begin with something like we believe a pollinarianism, and we don't believe that Christ is fully human. That they're not
gonna do it that way. They're gonna, you know, act like there's nothing wrong with being skittles, you know, that kind of stuff. So, I mean, that's usually the things that fall first, and then you get the heresies to back that up. Ortho, what's up? Yeah, it's funny how no Protestants will even call in a debate anymore, nor will the Muslims. What's up?
Man?
We're telling you, what's up? My man?
I think I know exactly why those Protestants don't want.
To debate you, okay, was that they're racist. They don't want to talk to a black man.
That's what I'm saying.
And exactly because and I showed what you truly looked like as a black man.
I think they're just scared of you for showing they prejudiced. Right, these white boys, these white boys over here, is prejudice when it comes to a real bipop queen. They want to play games with all these uh, you know, all of these phone e mcs. What's up? Uh, yuppie, appreciate that. Appreciate that Hello, Yeah, can you hear me?
All right?
Yes?
Are cool? Man?
I just kind of wanted to come on and say thanks man for the content that you make, because a.
Lot of it is really eye opening.
So I'm a Roman Catholic and I have been for probably I don't know, eight issu years now, and a lot of the stuff on the papacy they kind of don't really they don't really teach you the primary sources when you're getting into this stuff, you.
Know, yeah, I know I went through that, yeah.
Man, So it's like having an identity crisis over here, you know. And I just kind of wanted to ask, like, when.
You were a Roman Catholic and you were.
First getting these little sprinkles and bits of contradictions and like you know, Vatican One and Vatican two and actually reading the primary sources, Like, how did that make you feel?
You know what? I mean?
It was difficult. It was challenging. It was you know, paradigm shift shifting. I mean it was you know, because I was very serious about rob falsism. I was into Catholic apologetics. I was serious about driving hours to go to Latin mass I mean it was it was hard. Uh, It wasn't easy, but leaving it was best decision ever made. I would never go back to that.
Yeah, I mean it's I'm trying to get there, you know, like I'm having trouble sort of letting go.
Man, Like, what are the are you? Is it like part of your heritage and culture usually just that kind of stuff.
Yeah, it is, so, I actually was.
You know, I had like a break in my family from the Catholic Church, from my like through my parents because they were Protestants, but like, our heritage is TechEd Italian primarily, so you know, all of our ancestors and stuff.
Were Catholic, so it is like a cultural thing.
You know, our grandparents all that, we grew up with them being Catholic.
So I mean we are I am kind of bound up in that.
But man, well listen, you're gonna find if you go visit Orthodox Church and Orthodox Divine Liturgy, you're gonna find a new family that will help replace what you feel like might be missing family wise. I can guarantee you that as long as you find a decent church, which you know it's not too hard. But you know, when I left Rome in two thousand and eight nine, somewhere in there. You know, I had several Roman Catholic friends, and I think I've maintained maybe one or two of those,
but I've gotten much better friends. So you'll find better friends. So just go check out the community icono what's up? And then I'll go to the Protestant person here, mister s or whatever. Hey man.
And I was just wondering if the cult meeting got postponed for tonight?
The cult meeting? It did? Did you you? If you didn't wear your Hawaiian shirt vestiments, you're not allowed to come back to the cult anymore, because, as Rouselan says, right, Miamivice is cult aesthetics.
I got you and one more thing.
Someone told me that in order to get a debate with Ruslan, first, you've got a bot five.
Of his prayer journals.
Apparently there's just thousands of them sitting in a storage of being in California.
So there's a lot and a bunch of Blessed God T shirts too. So if you don't get a T shirt and a prayer journal, the T shirt you saw him preaching in, uh, he won't have anything to do with you. So yeah, you got to get that merch dog mister s or should I say missus?
Hell?
Well, m yeah, so do you have a valid argument for pros as falls?
Sure? It's uh not taught in the New Testament or by the Church fathers.
Wait, what do you think about it?
Argument has I guess I don't know. I don't I've never had any logic class. I don't know anything about validity. You'll have to teach me.
You don't know.
No, I don't tell me if.
The premises necessarily and tell the conclusions that.
You have that.
Yeah, so Protestanism is false because it's not taught the New Testament. It's not taught by the Church fathers. There you go, Okay, what Sanfranchie, you tell me why Protestantism is true.
These guys are plundering already.
Well, there's nothing. I don't have to put it.
If it's the case that it necessarily doesn't follow from the premises.
Valid do you have an argument or you're just gonna talk bullshit? So you don't have an argument? Yeah, the argument I don't have to put I don't have to put it into I'm not putting it into a syllogism because I don't want it. I don't have to for you. So Protestantism is protestant is, Protestantism is not taught in the Yeah, Protestantism is not. Protestantism is not taught in the New Testament. Protestantism is not taught in the New Testament. Therefore it's false. Wow, that's the argument.
That's a claim.
No, it's an argument. You can dispute it now, that actually is an argument.
No.
No, we all agree that we have to we have to stop interrupting me. Stop interrupting me. We all agree, we all we all agree that we have to follow the New Testament. The New Testament does not teach Protestanism. Therefore, protestist is false. There's your there's your syllogism. No, that's a syllogism. The Protestant is the New Testament is true. Here's here. Here is the syllogism. Protestantism is true. Excuse mean, the New Testament is true. Protestanism is not taught in
the New Testament, therefore it's false. Okay, what's the I don't All I have to do is give you a syllogism. Understandogisms need like infant is the syllogism invalid? Is the syllogism invalid? Yeah, how is it invalid? How is it invalid? Given that it doesn't have what? How is this? That doesn't tell me that it's invalid? No, it doesn't. It's a it's a valid syllogism. You don't agree, so you're just trolling. You don't even have an argument. You don't
have an argument. I gave you a syllogism. I gave you the very thing you asked for. How is it not valid? What is it violate? What does it value? What does it violate? What does it violate?
Good?
Good?
Good? What law does it violate?
What law?
He can't about.
The syllogism is valid. You wanted a syllogistic form of it, so that was nothing. The New Testament is true. Protestantism is not taught in the New Testament. Therefore Protestants is false. That's the argument. Now you can disagree with it. That's not invalid. What's up, man?
Hello?
What's up?
Hey?
Jay?
I just wanted to say I appreciate what you do so much.
My brother is super chatted earlier.
I'm a CD of human in the Orthodox Church.
And Cliff Connectel is coming to my school tomorrow.
Yeah, I answered that super chat earlier today.
Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on like specific question and if there's anything you would add and how you think you'd respond if solo scripture is true, how do you know which books are scripture without appealing to the authority of the early Church that you don't accept as binding.
Sure, I mean there's a lot of different ways you could go about that line of argument. That would be fine.
Okay, sweet, let's go.
Thanks j Yeah, by the way, I don't even think that guy. I think that that sounds like an atheist. That's an atheist trying to pretend that he is a Protestant, because no Protestant would argue some stupid line of argument like that key tone.
Hello, what's up? Hey?
What's up?
Jay?
So you know, some of my friends came up to speak to Malert and they were like pressing him, and this guy Mallard just wants to keep saying you blocked him, and you.
Know that, Yeah, he's unblocked right now, so he can come in here. He's running right, He is unblocked, so that he could come if he wants to. But I knew he's not gonna come.
Okay, because pretty much.
I went on as like you know Panel of twice and you know he just won't come up. Is it unbelievable?
Wait? What won't come up? What do you mean it's panel?
Uh?
He keeps saying, like you know, it's like you know him is a roving guy in Christian King JP, and they're just like talking about like, oh they're help me, Jada, I won't come way here, like and then talking about you're just scared of them, like J.
I already debated their idiot, their idiot, but buddy JP uncut, Why would I be scared of them if I already debated the dude? They did the exact same thing a year ago. They're just doing this to get attention, and they there's no reason why they can't call in right here and continue streaming and clip farm whatever they want.
No, I agree, you destroy them, but like why is calling like on your phone or something?
Just make them look embarrassing.
Because I'm on my phone right here with you. What are you talking about?
No, but you can just like switch over and destroy and we'll quick right.
I don't want to. They can call in here. I've already given them a platform.
Just keep asking them all right, see jack.
Uh not going on their stream for one, I'm not giving them what they want. I don't bow to them. They don't. It's like Rouselan say, you don't summon me, You don't summon me. Listen. I don't go on all the other streams. I do an open callin stream where you can call into me for people who have no following. A bunch of low tier need god level goobers. I don't have to go, and I'm not giving you a formal debate. You can call in here.
Ye uh huh.
You know I have a question about I know you're keep eating questions.
But why why are you always sound like you're about to laugh? Why why are you acting like you? Why are you always about to laugh? Questions you? Okay, why are you about to laugh? What's funny that you were getting blocked?
But can you can you keep singer and boss telling.
You he's unblocked to come here, That's what I'm saying.
So I'm asking why does he keep the building? When did that happen?
I always blocked these gobers, and then I unblocked them if I want them to come to debate, which I know they're not going to do, but I unblock them so that they can come to Bate. I block all the people that won't come to Bate. That's always been that's always been my mode of operation, and I'm gonna keep doing it and I don't care whether you'll like it or not. All right, smart uh huhm hm ek, what's up? These call her as? This is all his dumb audience. And you see the level of his audience.
This is what you get in these people's audience. This is the this is the orbiters of Ruslan. Okay, they're even lower tier than Ruslan, which is hard to imagine, but that's who these people are. They're trying to get me to go. I'm not going on there, so you're just wasting your time.
E K.
What's up? Hey, man?
I don't know if you saw it.
Yesterday, Rachel Wilson posted on x it's like compilation of Ruslan, basically like saying he's it was like early on in his career, and he's like, I'm trying to monetize my audience, man, trying to make like seven figures.
Yeah I should I played it yesterday. Yeah we should go back to that. Let's see, and everybody's like, no, that ain't fair to him?
Do that?
Ain't fear to him? Why is it not fair to him? If he's still doing what he said he was gonna do it, no fear of him. Y'all just dumb and you fell for a grifter and you don't want to admit it. Sunken calls fallacy. I know I shared that. Where's it at? Oh?
Here here?
I think uh Alex Soren shared it too. Let's see. This is it who believes is dumb wigger grifter? Right here? This is so stupid O way, I've never seen this stuff until recently.
I got the following.
I got twenty eight two hundred thousand on TikTok two.
Listen to this, bro, I got that following, dog, I got twenty eight k, Bro, I.
Got the following, I got twenty eight thousand. I got two hundred thousand on TikTok that five hundred thousand. How do I monetize these people?
You know what I mean? How do I monetize these people?
And through covetousness, shall they with feigned words make merchandise of money?
I like shoes and I like money.
And you got to figure out what what is your product going to be what can you sell people?
That's the actual question, right.
So we can puts the foot around and we can say, oh, like I want to have a ministry and I want to do this and I want to do that, right, But what we're really asking is like, how do I build a business?
I don't really care, damn Son, this is so amazing. I would have thought it.
AI care about how many followers I have. I need those metrics to an extent for the for the credibility of them. But I'm more thinking, what is my bank account going to look like in the next two to three years.
I need I need seven figures. I need I need, I need seven figures.
I would love to be in a position someday where I just have fu money.
Bro.
I got the following, I got twenty eight thousand. I got two hundred thousand on TikTok.
It's with Griff Maxon over here. And it's amazing because he ain't even shy about it. He just opened lots of Back in the day, you know, TV preachers will be a little more covert about it, you know what I'm saying. They was now It's just like no, I just I'm straight up. Just here, get that get paid doll, the stack stacks doll. Yes, this is real. I mean unless somebody made an AI short, this is real.
How do I monetize these people? You know what I mean? How do I monetize these people?
And through covetousness, shall they, with feigned words make meschandise of you whose judgment now have a long time linger with not.
I like shoes.
I like shoes, freaking gay as hell, dude shoes. The women like shoes. That's a feminine thing, Toby, what's up those that I like shoes? I like heels, I like my slip on Jordan's what.
Uh?
Just before I ask my question asman, thank you because similar to the guy a couple of guys before, I used to be a heavy atheist, like an anti theist, and then I started watching your stuff and you've helped me. Uh, definitely convert to Christianity.
Cool.
My question was on the on tag? Could I run it byke?
I mean we're not really doing tag tonight. I mean, can you just come that back next time with that tonight's topics or Catholicism and Protestantism. So I'm not trying to be a douchebag. It's just I want to sit here for twenty minutes explaining philosophical stuff. I'm not being rude, it's just it's Protestant, Catholic, Mormon stuff tonight. I'm just I don't have the energy for tag tonight, Stallion. What's up?
As soon as I start explaining a bunch of philosophical stuff, it's going to go from seventeen hundred to eight hundred? What's up? Man? And you?
That was good.
I was just appear to ask when looking at Eastern Catholics, and by the way, I'm like, I'm with you. I'm round and more Certism, you know, I'm more Orthodox sympathetic, you know, so when looking at us, I live in an area with a lot of Eastern Catholics, and so they try to pos it like, you know that they are I mean they, I mean they are essentially Eastern Orthodox by communion with Rome.
But isn't that just the catchlin two? Like, is isn't that just the double amy on them? You know?
It is? It's an even worse uh position to be in. And it's also an obvious refutation of the Roman Catholic system, because how can you have competing theologies and confessions of faith when everybody admits that the church has one confession of faith, so how can there be too? How can you be in a church that believes in the phillyoquay and also rejects it.
Yeah, and I just want to confirm if I'm to be baptized Orthodox, what's the stance on marrying an Unorthodox, marrying a Catholic or marrying and you know, what is the stance on that?
You know, that's a decision that you will suss out with your spiritual father, that will be decided canonically. That's not something I can really tell you. I mean, there is there are allowances through economia for marriage to people who are not well Orthodox, but it's not wise, it's not recommended. But that's something that you know, you'd have to take that up with them, with the people that will bring you in. Drake, what's up? Yeah, I'm trying to monetize them. People don't following.
I got twenty eight thousand, I got two hundred thousand on TikTok hundred thousand.
How do I monetize these people?
You know what I mean?
How do I monetize these people?
And through covetousness, shall they with feigned?
What?
By the way, where are the Protestants calling out Ruslan for this stuff? And uh? People are saying in the chat, which I still haven't gone and sussed this out, but they were saying that Rouslan was a leftist or leftist sympathetic for many years calling out people like Bryson Gray. So I imagine that. Imagine those two idiots in a room together right calling out Bryson Gay. Uh, because Bryson Gay was too political. I mean, I'm not in a
maga cult either. I don't have a problem criticizing and rejecting all kinds of things from Trump, which we've done consistently for the whole time. But I mean, wasn't it funny in Rousselan's video He's like, I don't care about Epstein and what all he's up to. Well, you ought to care about Epstein because it has to do with the stranglehold that evangelical Zionism has on the entire country. So it doesn't matter what's up man, Yo.
Jay appreciate you.
And I see alex Is in the voice chat debating, I think it's important. I'm a Baptist background acquiring the Orthodoxy through the arguments you presented and Alex had presented.
I just want to call it real quick because I'm.
Sure you have a video about it. But do you have any recommendations on books about worship, how the Early Church worship, how it's connected to Old Testament worship.
We have a whole documentary that we made. It's called Christian Worship and the Old Testament at Orthodox Shahada channel. The documentary recommends several books like Williams and Anstall's book on the Temple and the Synagogue Liturgy being the basis for the Orthodox Liturgy, and Hugh Weybrew's book Byzantine Liturgy. But thank you for the call, Austin. What's up? Austin? What's up you over there? R? And B Church? He dropped off Taylor, child of the Most High. Whenever I
see that, I know I'm in trouble. I'm a child of the Most High. What's up?
Man?
Are you a woman?
Yeah?
I'm a woman.
I was wondering when you think about women in apologetics because the multiple women like Phoebe in the propheta Sannah who I share the Gospel in the Bible.
What do you think.
About that, Well, that was during a time when there was ongoing divine revelation. So if the Holy Spirit shows to speak through a woman or a prophet to us, he can do that. But that doesn't mean that women are called to that in the history of the church, and that's why women are typically not in that role.
But they share the good news with Paul.
Did you not hear what I said? I mean, you can share the Gospel and you can convert people. That doesn't mean you're called to be an apologist.
Okay.
And when you issue with Bryson, why'd you call him gay?
He's an anti trinitarian, insane, heretic. What are you talking about? You don't think that trinity is a fundamental deed of Christ or fundamental doctions of Christianity.
I do, But I.
Think that's like, you know, going beyond what's written and causes division.
You know, how could it be?
He says, do not feel beyond what's written and divide? You know, basically have divisions, So.
How can I doesn't John saying one, John two that if you deny Christ, you're anti Christ. Absolutely, So it's not going beyond what's written to say that denying the deity of Christ makes your Antichrist.
But you cannot deny deity without accepting trinity because one thing, like, for example, to say Christ is eternal.
With the Father, you can, yes, it is. What are you talking about? So you're not a child? You're not even that does? How does that mean? He's not divine? I mean does my does? Are you a polytheist? How many divinities you worship?
No?
But he said, like, why is it even a father and a son? If the father didn't create the son? He said, I proceeded from the Father.
Yeah, that's it, said, I came from That's eternal generation. It's not a where do you get creation? It says probably fifty times a New Testament. The son is not a creature. Where do you get that? He's a creature?
It talks about in Psalms two seven, like I will proclaim.
The words decree on.
This day I have forgotten the Yeah, that's any that's an eternal begotten. That's an eternal begetting. Because John one says he's the only begotten God monoganies theos but begotten at what point eternally begotten? Do you think that if I had a son? Would he said, have the same nature as me. Yeah, okay, okay. Is God uncreated the Father?
Yes?
Okay. So if he, if he has a son, wouldn't the son have the same nature? Yes, But but he's yes, but he's what.
But he's not the prime mover.
A logic would say, there must be a prime mover.
And I'll be the father.
Right, What does that have to do with eternal generation? He could be the prime mover and eternally prime move a son as his offspring.
Is there multiple prime movers?
The father is in this argument the prime mover. The son is what's moved. But it's an eternal moving.
But it says in this day, on this day, I have begotten.
That means eternal generation. And the way that we know that is John One where he says in the beginning was the word the word was good with God, the word was God.
Yeah.
I mean you already admitted this when you said that the father's nature is uncreated and the son has the same nature. So there you go. You you yourself said it.
Okay, I just think the words device of like transarianism.
But that's well, who even put the Bible together? So what do you what do you you don't. I don't even grant that you.
Have the.
We don't necessarily we don't know who put the Bible together. We don't know who put the Bible together.
Yeah, who put the Code Exeneticus together?
I mean, that's not the Bible. That's one textual tradition. That's not the Bible. Who put the New Testament together with the Old Testament in the first thousand years of the church. You don't know who created the Why are you asking me a different question? How does that ask? That's not an answer. That's a textual tradition. You don't know the difference beween a textual tradition.
They can in a scripture, but the Code Exeneticus has all the books.
That is a textual tradition. It's not a canon.
Well then, I mean, what if you don't subscribe to a canon, you subscribe to the textual tradition.
How do you know that's the right textual tradition?
The same reason that the squirrels preserve the Old Testament.
Totally irrelevant, nothing to do, irrelevant. Okay, you don't even understand this isn't irrelevant. It doesn't even relate to what I'm talking about. How do you know what the books are in the Bible is appealing to the dec He's WROA has nothing to do with that, Austin, what's up? That's why women shouldn't be in an apologetics? You, you, yourself, are the argument for why women can't do apologetics. You're not made for that. What's up? Conn, I've what's up?
This other guy can't get in here? Hello?
Can you hear me? M hm?
So I was a Catholic seminarian for two years and one of my Greek Orthodox friends brought up Luminingen Tim's sixteen to me, and as a Catholic in good faith, I'm willing to admit I can't argue it and say that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.
Good, So you have some discernment. So yeah, So.
I've asked various priests and other theologians that I know, and the main arguments I hear are like it's like these cope arguments, like I'm usually told Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God.
You know that's not true, or I'll hear.
It doesn't matter what the church father said here in this portion, because it was a different time period, and it's like, that's not true. So I'm writing a letter to a Catholic theologian and apologist that I personally know. He's like, he's actually gonna know about it. So I'm just curious if there's any resources that you would recommend.
Yeah.
Yes, it's called First John okay and chapter yeah, chapter two, which says that if you deny the Son, you're Antichrist. Now again, remember in the watch the debate that we did with Trent Doherty h and whatever that other guber's name is. And you'll notice in that debate, I asked Trent Doherty, I say, so, you're telling me that Jake and the Muslim metaphysician who has explicitly rejected the Trinity, that he still worships the same God even though Muslim
explicitly say Allah is not a father. That right there will show you. And I think that shows everybody how absurd the line of argumentation is for these guys, because they will actually still stress, no, he still worships the
same God. Keep in mind, too, there's ambiguity about the term worship and if Atican two had restricted their language to saying something like Muslims Christians and Jews all perhaps reference or intend to reference the same entity or object that could be one thing, but they mistakenly use or perhaps not mistakenly use the word worship. Worship is not the same thing as mental, notional recognition, or reference. Worship has to do with what God lays down to what
he accepts. God does not accept Muslim and Jewish worship. And that's something that we're told multiple times in New Testament when Paul writes the Book of Hebrews and says that it's a dead religion, and Judaism is not going to commend you to God through dead rituals and things that are fulfilled in the Church and in Christ. So Rabbinic judaism is not the worship of the One True God.
And you can read the Gospel of John two, of John five through nine where Jesus argues with the Pharisees that he is the I Am of Exodus and that the only that no one comes to the Father but through him, and you do not have the Father because they do not have him. So Jesus himself repeats the same message of first John two. Yeah, that's what I that's what I was writing about. So I mean I found some things from Chrysostom. Yeah, Chrystm says Muslim.
I don't want to make a context error by in putting Muslims where Jews are, but I feel like it kind of makes sense.
It's the same line of argumentation. I mean, in fact, it's even worse for the Muslim argument because Muslims explicitly reject that God is a father. Yeah, and Jews at least admit God as a father. So, and I'm not saying that that makes it the same reference. I'm just saying it's even more removed from the Jewish position because of an explicit rejection of father and son in Islam. So it's just preposterous to still say, oh, but it's still the same Why, well, it's the same word again.
It's all just terrible arguments. Zaiah, what's up? You crowed a move? Mary on Friday? You marry what's up? I'm mute three? What's up? Three clocks? I mute three clocks?
Hey, Jay, thanks for taking the question.
I was curious if you could provide what you think the best steel man.
For the papacy is and how you would refute it.
I mean, I don't maybe supposedly the papacy would give you decisions on disputed matters. Maybe that's the strongest argument that they have, and the reputation would be that that doesn't actually seem to be the case. I mean, we have massive lack of clarity for the last seventy years in the Roman Catholic world on theology and morals. So the supposed you know, sales pitch that the papacy will give us unity, certitude, clarity, and preservation of the faith
falls apart in the last seventy years. So Zio, what's up? What's us?
Hey?
Thanks for taking a question.
I had a few questions. You know, I've been watching you debate for a while. I haven't really seen you lose a theological debate. Really haven't seen you lose a debate at all.
I am an Eastern.
Orthodoge Christian, and I mean I just had like a few questions.
One of them is personal.
I don't know if you're cool with answer and answering that.
I don't care, okay, And I have.
Also had a theological question.
Do you think that saying the N word is holy and rooted in good faith?
Can you tell me why? They tell me why? The N word is a bad word. Well for me, now why is it bad? Now for you? I don't ask you. For you, why is it bad? What are the bad words? And how do we know what they are?
Well?
I think it can be.
Like I guess, it can be kind of defined as an idol or careless way of speaking.
So all idol speech includes what every joke is also part of that? No, definitely not. Well why would a joke not be part of idle speech?
Because I think that a joke is coming from a different place in heart.
So now it's motives that didn't that determine it? Well, but you said that you said the in word. Now you said the in word itself was bad.
My marguement would be that it's not building you up in your spirit, coming from the Eastern Orthodox perspective.
So and my question again is exact same question, because you moved the goalpost to say that it's the word itself, the in word, because you said, well, it's idle speech. Well, jokes are idle speech And you're like, no, it has to do with the motives. Well, how do you know the motives? So which one you're you keep shifting as to what makes it bad by the way. You don't you understand like twenty different black people gave me inward passes.
Right, that's cool, that's cool.
How is it?
Well? So?
How so? How am I bad? If it's cool?
Now, it's cool, it's cool.
I was really just asking you, what like if you think that saying the N word is holy and rooted in good faith?
That was my original. Okay, sure, I just wanted to get your goodbye. Yeah, you go point out and show how holy you are. Everybody else somewhere else, Mendoza, what's up? Go ask h Brosi why he gave me so many inward passes? What's up? Man? Mendoza?
A J.
Doyer, this is Ruth Blawn's bar bro I mean hair dresser and all the broccoli cook king.
Hey, y'o yo, you got a little bit of cheese to add to that broccoli.
My brother Paum was on a shadow.
What's you want?
Bro?
I just we know Rouselan is all about that cheddar. That's that money, dog, that's that money, bro J Doyer?
Can you put it to a syllogistic Sylogilly with the why Protestantism and Ruthlan and faking.
Great I can't, bro, I guess I gotta retuire. Yeah, what can you explain how using the in word is holy? I guess I'm not holy.
So there we go, exposed.
Dude, nobody cares about this shit anymore. People don't care about the four letter words and grandstanding and pearl clutching about all of that. That's just so gay, dude, and I don't care anymore. I don't care at a certain point, man, after years and people just attack you NonStop over everything.
And I said, again, this is the same stuff. Remember when Sam Shamoun and his buck buddy William Albrick tried to get me because somebody went in his chat calling scam Shamou a sand inward and they tried to say it was me, which is probably them a bunch of snakes, just some random ass dude in Streamyard, like I'm on stream Yard while I'm on my live stream and I'm in I mean, it's just retarded, like I'm not ever
going on their streams. And meanwhile, then then scam Shamou, now he doesn't have a problem saying all these words, right, I mean, imagine Sam Shamun trying to call people out for words that's crazy. I'm the emperor of Xantheum. I have at least twenty four inward passes, which I use is very selectively in choice situations. And I don't care whether you're like or not. I don't care what you think. What's up? Man? Listen? The only way to do media, The only way to handle this stuff is to not care.
You have to not care. You can't hand look at what happens when you do freak out, You have a meltdown like Rusline. What's up, man, Hey, Jake and Hearn.
I listened to your debate a long time ago, but I listened to it recently again yesterday with erky.
Bar that you had uh huh.
And one of the points that you had to keeat over and over again because he didn't understand it was your rejection of classical foundationalism and how he kept on asking you what does he have to point towards in history in order to prove like people infallibility or people jurisdiction and stuff like that. I guess, how are we supposed to look at history? And how do we use that coherence type of argmentation to look at historical data?
That well, the main point The main point of that response was, you know, Eric's whole approach was, let me stack up all of these supposed evidences for a strong papal perspective, and then isn't it likely that this would tip over into Vatican one? And I said, I don't even grant that, because at a systemic level, if there's
one dogmatic contradiction that disproves the whole system. So it's just an easier, quicker way to go about the apologetics because the old way apologetics was done back when, you know, it was like the last decade or so of Roman Catholics versus protest It was always this quote mind war back and forth of well, here's all my quotes that the church fathers don't think that it's Peter and Matthew sixteen, and here's this over here, the exegesis of this passage.
And it was just endless throwing quotes back and forth, which never gets you anywhere. So how about a quicker way. Just like if we're debating an atheist, I'm gonna tear the whole foundation out from under them by going after the presubpositions and assumptions. I do the same thing with the Roman Catholic. If there's one dogmatic contradiction, the entire system fails, and they never understand this because they don't
think systemically. Then once they get it, it clicks. And ironically, in that very debate, I think I'm going for a memory, but I think Abara said something like, if you could show a dogmatic contradiction, I'd have to admit that is false. Well, that's what I'm That's the whole point of why we're not going to argue. Look, because if you go that approach, it never goes anywhere. You're going to be throwing scholars back and forth. It's the same debate that's a stupid,
a debate about who's got the right miracles. It's never going to prove anything. The Protestant's going to sit there forever and not believe Fatima, and you're gonna sit there forever trying to prove Fatima as a miracle, and it's not going to go anywhere. So what's really at root is our interpretive frameworks about how we understand the world, and thus miracles, for example, whether they're even possible is
determined by your presuppositions. So the whole debate is always presuppositional unless you're specifically debating some topic that's more political or you know, ethical, like is abortion wrong or something like that, But even that's going to probably go back
to presupposition. So because I was in the Roman Catholic system for a long time and I lived it and I tried to argue for it, I understand how they think, and I've identified the specific mistake, which is foundationalism, and they're always going to go back to that, whether it's Tomism or whether it's the way they approach apologetics and the papacy and stacking up all these evidences supposedly because they have a very naive approach. They have a pre
modern approach to metaphysics, and evidence is in brute facts. Well, if there's not brew facts, then that whole thing fails. And you'll notice they actually already kind of believe that. When it comes to their debates with Protestants about the persepecuted scripture, they'll all argue that scripture actually isn't perspicuous. Scripture actually has to be interpreted, and sometimes it's very complex,
it's very difficult and requires systemic level thinking. Oh okay, well, then guess what the rest of other things are that way. The rest of the worldview is that way. Metaphysics is that way, history is that way. There aren't brute facts in history that we just all will, I guess we all agree that. You know, Council of Constructinople three said this. Now everybody's debating the Council of concept a Noble three and what it means. There's gigantic decades long, perhaps centuries long.
Who's that, Martin Jugi. Martin Jugi spent years arguing that Constantinople three teaches tomism. It's a prototomistic interpretation of Jesus to deny the energies. So again, at every angle, what's
the root assumption here? Route factuality, evidentialism, and foundationalism. So if I undercut all of that, and that was part of what the whole Trent Hornaby was about when I debated him on natural theology, I'm like, this whole system is built on a very naive you know, ancient medieval perspective on metaphysics and laws of logic is just givens. But we live in a modern world that doesn't grant that anymore. So I'm just going to say to Ericabar or anybody else, like, why should I build up a
thousand stacks of evidences? Look at his whole papacy book. It's like five hundred boring ass pages trying to build up a bunch of evidences when all I need is one contradiction in dogma and the whole system is false. I don't think they understand systemic thinking, which is ironic because they believe in systems like the Tomistics system. But
the Tomistic system is essentially a foundationalist system. It's built on natural theology and a form of foundationalism, and you know, Aristilian just sort of givens Well, people don't believe that anymore. The whole world has moved on past that, So you're gonna need an apologetic that answers the modern world. You can't just reassert Tomism as if it's a given. I mean, it's this is like, duh, dude, Christ Seeker, what's up? Man? I'm you hey?
Can you hear me?
Hey?
Why is Protestantism false in your opinion?
Well, I'll say what I said to the guy a minutor ago. Protestantism is not taught in the New Testament, and it's not taught by the people who put the New Testament together. Therefore, it's false.
Did Apostolic succession cease great schism or did that continue in the.
Roman Catholic Church?
Well, as an Orthodox person, no, we don't believe it continued in the Roman Catholic Church. They schismed.
Oh really, I didn't know that. Huh.
I mean Apostolic succession presupposes the Apostolic Faith. Rome departed on multiple counts from the Apostolic Faith, and the Orthodox Church believes that it has Apisolic succession and not Rome. Any heresy or schism makes you no longer a part of Apostolic succession. Doesn't matter how many hands you had laid on you. It's not some mechanical thing like a some sort of ritual magic. If you lose the faith, then you're not an Apostolic succeed succeed or I see.
So what allows us to access God's energies?
God himself? God himself has condescended to be present and imminent in the world in various modes. Whether it's the incarnation the second person that God had becoming a child, growing up defeating death, or whether it's the divine energies that are ever present throughout the world. Those are all condescensions of God to meet us. As Basil says in the letter two thirty four.
Okay, you answered who, but like what gift does God?
Oh?
I mean, I guess you're asking grace? I guess is the answer to your question. Grace is the uncreated energies that we participate in.
And what allows us tax has that grace.
God allows us to I don't understand your question.
Well with the whole like.
Faith alone, doctrine and Protestantism, I'm seen it as the gift of faith is what allows us to add access God's grace, his uncreated love, glory, all of it.
Yeah, but Jesus says, this is the work of God that you believe on him whom he has sent. So faith is a work too according to Jesus.
Faith is a work by Jesus. Is that what Sheesus said, This.
Is the work of God that you believe in Him whom he has sent. Thus faith is also a work according to Jesus. Yeah, not of our own, well, not of your own in the sense of being only from you. But you do work with God at all points. Paul says, I'm a co worker with Christ. It is God's power at work in me and through me. So that doesn't mean that you lose your own will because God is at work in you. It's a both and it's ay synergy.
Right.
Do you think there's a harmonization between synergism and monogism?
There? No monarchism is a monothelite heresy literally elaborate on that. Yeah. The fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils ended up producing disputes with the Oriental Churches, which led to a debate about whether in Christ there's one energy that has to overcome and supplant or take over the human will and energy in Christ, or whether there's a synergy between the two
wills at all times. And the Orthodox Church teaches, according to the six Secumentical Council that in Christ there's a perfect synergy between the natural will and energy in Christ's humanity and the natural will and energy in Christ's divinity. So that affects our view of anthropology and sateriology to mean then that human beings at all points and times still have a natural human will and energy proper to their nature. That at every point, whether it's beginning to
believe repenting the whole life of sanctification. All of those phases include a human will and energy.
Gotcha.
But at the end of the day and humility it's all by God.
That like monarchistic element.
Where is where? Where is the monogism there?
Well, it's all God at the end of the day. And humility.
Okay, all right, you win. You're humble. Guapo? What's up? Gapo? What's up?
What up?
J How are you doing?
You notice that guy as already asked, Oh, he must die or must be a fed because I don't concede his moral high ground. It's about the black dude talking about the N word. What's up? Man?
Can you hear me?
Hello?
Yeah?
Well, first of all was I was.
Inquired about worthotoxy for two years and I recently converted this Easter. I wanted to ask you, do you have any advice on helping parents convert? Because my mom is a non denominational and she really doesn't get the whole gist of Orthodoxy even if I were to explain it to her.
I mean, I wouldn't try to debate and explain it to my parents. I would try to be a good son and become a responsible adult, and that will be some of the best type of evidence and argumentation to help convince your mom. You're never going to convince your your parents by debating them. Don't try it. It's a huge mistake I made in my twenties. Don't even waste your time trying it. You're going to convert them through whether they're proud of you becoming immature adult electric? What's up?
Have you forgiven on mobile electric?
I'm you, Hey, Jay, it's an honor.
Thanks a lot for having the MIC. I've seen your work.
Super excited to talk to you. Thanks a lot for your time. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. What would you advise for someone who has a belief in God?
But how do you cross that bridge to face?
And what do you think about death and dying and like what happens to you in the afterlife?
I would say, go visit an Orthodox church and experience all of that in the first person. And I believe that when we die, we have a particular judgment and then we have a return of the soul to God sometimes called the toll houses, and we don't know the specifics of all that. We may kind of be around the grave and so forth. His father sur from Rose says in his book Soul after Death, Life, the soul after death, and then we return to God. So how
that works out, we don't know the specifics. But and then at the resurrection we are all rejoined to our bodies at the end of time, at the general resurrection for the Great White Throne judgment. So those are the and then we enter into the eternal resurrected new heavens and new Earth. Or we have rejected God and we experience God as torment. Not that God torments people, but they God has experienced as torment. Ethan, what's up?
What's that dogth?
You owe me a COUCHI suit Ethan? Hey, So I have an agnostic and.
Eastern Orthodox inquiring background, and as fate happened, I also inquired at a foreign Baptist church recently made mistake because well, maybe not a mistake.
But once I learned a little bit more.
About the theology, I was horrified, frankly, and I think I've absorbed some of the assumptions of Eastern.
Theology, which is why I reacted so negatively to reform theology. And I was wondering if you could kind of steal man A couple of positions and present how that could possibly gel with the Gospel and adjust.
God, namely that God would only elect certain humans and not give us proper free will or give us a fake free will in which we can't actually choose him until He regenerates us through grace. I can't understand how these Calvinists can believe that a just God would create certain humans just to be condemned, which is the extension of that view.
Yeah, I can tell you how. It's called theological voluntarism, and it's one of the sort of attendant ideas to absolute divine simplicity. So when I was a Calvinist, the reason I thought this was because I just sort of defaulted to thinking, well, God is the ultimate creator and sovereign being, and so that must mean then that he's
also the ultimate determiner of what is right and wrong. Right, so that would mean that, well, if God did create somebody to damn them, you can't say God can't do that, because God can do anything that he wants. So because I was kind of a without knowing that, you know, when I first became a Calvinist, I didn't know what theological voluntarism was. I didn't realize that. Well, that's a position that's kind of goes back to William of Auckham.
Even though he wasn't a Calvinist, he had this voluntaristic position and Calvindary states it explicitly, which is that but God's will is his essence, and this God can will whatever he wants. And so there's not a nature that corresponds or of the good, or created natures that correspond to the divine nature. Right, So, because there's no created natures that reflect the divine nature, God's nature thus has no things or categories that restrict or bind it, and
so it has to be completely unbounded. The divine will has to be completely unbounded. And that was my presubposition about what divine sovereignty had to mean. So, because I had that perspective, that under was underlying my readings of
all the texts. Right, so when I would read Ephesians one two, or when I would read Romans nine, or you know, various other passages to talk about divine sovereignty, like, my assumption is, oh, well, then that must mean that you know, the elect are the fixed number of people that were chosen forth the foundational world because God's all knowing, right.
But as you you learn more, and as you get a little more sophisticated, I think, with understanding philosophical distinctions that end up being pretty necessary for theology, you realize that there's some pretty big problems with theological voluntarism, and you realize, well, wait a minute, you know what I thought was a Reformation debate. They already had this debate in the Middle Ages, right, and this was the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of
a pen. That was a real theological debate because it related to the question of which I think Aukham raised, which was if God wanted to, could he immediately just damn all the blessed that are in heaven? And if you're a theological voluntariers, you have to say, well, yeah, because God's will is the ultimate determiner of good, and so God willed too he could actually change what the good is. Right, you can begin to see how well actually this is moving more than more in the direction
of like Islam. And then again you get more sophisticated, you learn more, you realize, oh, wait a minute, why does sovereignty have to mean a absolute divine simplicity level position that equates the divine will to the divine essence, and thus the divine will becomes an essential determining cause. So, for example, it didn't occur to me that God could create a world where there are multiple secondary causes, right, And if you think I think about Islam, Islam has
the exact same position with what's called occasionalism. And if you're a Calvinist and you're looking into why Calvinism is wrong, I highly recommend, at least if you want to approach from a philosophical perspective. Our good buddy Lewis over at Orthodox Shahada made a very overlooked video that really flew under the radar. It was a very I think it's because it was so kind of metaphysically oriented that most
people kind of found it difficult. But I think if you have a little bit of philosophical knowledge, it won't be too difficult. And it's uh. When we were doing a lot of Muslim debates, we were encountering and dealing with the sunny argumentation about occasionalism where's it at? And it actually ends up being another excellent way to refute Calvinism. Am I said, did I misspell occasionalism? I know what's on here.
Let's see.
So for those that don't know, the classic Sunny position is the idea that that God all law cannot allow for secondary causes, so there can be creaturely causes. Right, So when we say that God is the original cause, the first cause, the direct cause, et cetera of the creation of the world or whatever. In the Islamic conception, they would say that if you allow for secondary causes, you're actually detracting from Allah's all powerfulness or his sovereignty.
And why that is I don't know, Like why could it not be? It's just an arbitrary assumption, right, Like why could it not be the case that maybe being all powerful also includes a being that can create secondary causes, you see, So it's just sort of an assumption. Where is Lewis's here, It is classical Islam's unusual metaphysics. And this is Lewis's excellent documentary. It only got ten thousand views and Lewis put like a million hours into this
poor video. But this also refuse it's calvinism. If you watch this video and you understand it, it actually refutes Calvinism too. So here we are. We had twenty two hundred live and then we dropped to fifteen hundred as soon as I started talking about metaphysics. So notice how people just flee like the mirror mention of metaphysics. Do people just run, dude, They're just run for the hills.
I don't understand why so many people just have no attention span and they're so just freaked out or like they're just like you mentioned a philosophical term and your your audience literally just immediately cuts in half. It's always been that way. It's crazy. You mentioned mention, a book mentioned literary analysis. Boom, two thirds are gone. Doe, they hit the freaking door. They out this mother, So there
you go. This refutes Calvinism as well, because these are the metaphysical assumptions of Calvinism, absolutely identical to Sunni Islam. And I remember when I was to read the Puritans, right, I remember reading one time Jonathan Edwards in his sermons actually making occasionalist arguments. He said that for God to be all powerful, he actually must at every millisecond destroy and recreate the world, otherwise there would be other causes,
and thus God would not be the immediate direct cause. Right, So even though Calvinists give, as this guy said when he called in a verbal credence to quote free will, it's not really free will because it's all still the direct divine decree that is the cause of every event. Well that's the Muslim position, dude, That's literally the Islamic sunny occasionalist position. And it's really absurd if you think about it. So it's like, I'm not even the same
Jay from two seconds ago. Right, And by the way, why is it one second or why is it one millisecond? I mean, wouldn't it also be every nanosecond? It's just absurd. It's like just stupid stuff. And I mean you're not even going to find Muslims who even understand this, like maybe Jake, Like Jake is probably the only Muslim that can even talk about metaphysics. So so yeah, so that also works for a few Calvinism and the assumptions that
underlie the reading of a text. So notice right there, you see that texts aren't self interpreting, like Calvinists and Protestants think, texts are replete with ambiguity and their theory laden and if texts are theory laden, then so are miracles, so are evidences. So we need a paradigm, and we all have a paradigm through which we interpret the evidence is the facts, the texts, the miracles, the events, et cetera. Hopefully that's a helpful explanation. And that was my thinking
when I was a Calvinist. I was like, well, I'm just trying to follow the clear meaning of the scriptures. And I wanted to say, you know, I may not like the idea that God creates people for damnation, but who am I to challenge God? Right? And I thought that was the line of argument that Paul had in Romans nine. But then later on I remember being challenged. Even this was even during the when the Presbyterians were, when Doug Wilson was first having his sect, when he
first created his CREC. I was in the Presbyterian circles at that time, and the schism happened because Doug Wilson, By the way, it wasn't because he was Orthodox, but they started posing points that would actually lead eventually lead a lot of people into Orthodox here Catholicism. What they started saying things, well, wait a minute, Paul's letters and Ephesians are not written to the elect They're written to
an actual visible community at Ephesus. And when that clicked with me, I was like, wait a minute, well, that would mean he's calling the whole visible community the predestined. So then my visible invisible split a Nestorian ecclesiology started
falling apart. Even way back then when I was listening to Doug Wilson and what was called the Auburn Avenue Conference, right, a bunch of these Presbyterian OPC and PCA pastors did this conference under this I forget the guy's name who hosted the conference, but they argued for collective identity of the church with those types of texts, and they already
for paido communion. And this was a huge deal in the Presbyterian world because Presbyterianism was so adamant about you know, paido baptism but not paido communion, just a really bizarre, sort of arbitrary position. And they started challenging that and arguing that, hey, maybe there's actually a biblical case for paido communion. And then you start saying you start moving into thinking, well, wait a minute, if there's a biblical case for that, and a historical case. Then is there
a biblical historical case for baptismal regeneration? You see how the dominoes begin to fall. So those were all definitely elements that led me out of Calvinism a long time ago, and I wasn't ready for Orthodox yet. I just went, you know, straight into Rome because I thought, I thought, back in two thousand and three, it was just sort of you're either Protestant or your Orthodox, I mean, or your Catholic. Right, there was that for most people even
at that time. You know, you had Bonson debating Jerry Madditis, you had Scott Hahnd debating James White and Protestant people. You had Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong and whoever else, and that was really all there was. Right. Nobody knew about Orthodox apologists, you know, Perry Robinson wasn't known yet. He was blogging perhaps, but there wasn't a big visible presence like there was for the Catholic Protestant debate, which
had been going on for centuries obviously. So anyway, I'm rambling, but Elijah was something.
Yell, hey, gil uh.
So I had a I had a question that I was really hoping that Paul deacon In and I should be on here for.
A bit, but i'll i'll just shoo shoot the shot.
Anyways, So is it a dense tag question, because we've had several people trying to get like I'm trying to do Protestant versus Orthodox mainly here. Is it a tag question? No, it's not.
It's a it's a scism great skills in question.
Okay.
So now I'm going to preface my my question with saying that I am about the furthest person from an ecumenist.
Okay, I am like it's the opposite of that.
Okay.
But there's one little thing that I'm kind of just like wondering about, and I'm kind of confused about, which is in the history of the Great Schism, It's it's pretty evident that the schism isn't actually like a clean overnight.
Yeah. I've made this argument for ten years, right, it takes a few centuries for this to really like work its way out, right.
So one of the things that I'm you know, one of the things I'm kind of saying is that with the other patriarchates besides Constantinople, it took even them kind of a little bit of time to recognize a schism, you know, push away to Rome saying they're not part of the church.
Right, So, so I guess my question is that some of.
The post schism Roman Catholic saints that are like immediately after the schism. I guess I'm just kind of wondering, like, is there a reason why even if the other Patriarchids are still communion with Rome for a long time after that schism, Like, why wouldn't some of those.
Roman Catholic saints right afterwards not be.
People that would have some grace or maybe they would be recognized as a saint.
Like I'm just kind of curious on how that would work.
Yeah, I don't think we don't know. I mean, I think the one thing about Orthodoxy is that we're happy at times to say, you know, we leave that up to God. We don't have to make judgments about every single post schism saint. Obviously, I want to hope that everybody makes it, you know what I mean. But you know there's ambiguity too because we don't exactly know their status or how much they did and didn't know. Right.
So for example, you know, Thomas Beckett, right like was Thomas Beckett believing in the double eternal hypostetic procession while he was a famous you know, Roman Catholic martyr in England, and I think he's post schism. I want to say, what is he?
Like?
Eleven hundreds? I mean, but maybe we don't have enough writings to know did he one h a percent understand or even know what the Council b Lion said. So that's why many cases it's just sort of ambergurity, as jesse Lei Peterson was saying, I mean to me, that makes sense, right, It's like for us, like you know, there was that ambigurity period where Saint Isaac the Syrian his group ended up being in communion with the Orthodox Church at that certain point, and thus we can say
he was a saint. But you know, unless there's like some sort of like explicit evidence where okay, well they're actually saying And there's another point to make too. When all the Coptics got mad at me because I was saying that we can't add their martyrs to our calendar, It's like we're not saying that God can't you know, extend grace to them and make them part of the mystical body. We don't know that. In fact, I hope that he does. I hope that all those people are
in heaven. We don't want anybody to be damned. But it doesn't mean that we have to accept them in the calendar, right, And that's I think the confusion here is that people leave this element out and they just assume that, oh, well, you know, you got to say that the Coptic martyrs are saints. Well, saint for us means that they're going to be in the calendar. And that's not something that we want to extend to everybody, and we don't want to have, you know, angles by
which people could exploit this for acumenism. So hopefully that makes sense. But I think when you read the literature, for example, about the the course of the debate from the time of say Maximus all the way up to Florence, that's like almost that's eight hundred years of figuring out, Okay, what do you guys mean, Well, here's what we mean, right, so, and it doesn't get dogmatized in the West until Lyons in Florence. So I'm happy to extend as much a
charity throughout that period. So let's say, when was so Thomas Beckett was martyred like a century after the schism right, and he died before even the council Lions, So you know, and I would say even if he was recy a Phillyoquay Creed, you know, the same Aximus says, there's ambiguity in what they mean by that. Now, I think it's wrong to recite a Philioquay Creed. But do we have
to say that this guy didn't give his life for Christ. No, because there's no explicit, identifiable means by which we can say, Okay, this guy was actually a heretic. Right, unless there is some unknown treatise that I don't know about where Thomas Beckett is defending, you know, the phillyoquay or so maybe there is. I don't know, but I'm just giving an example from somebody that pops into my head. So but
I could be wrong about that. I'm not a I'm not an expert in this period of the twelfth century. So Kevin, what's something? Man?
All right? Dad?
That work?
I just have myself, ag did you have a question.
I just want to respond to the guy who asked about the cannon question, who said he was going to debate protest.
That is a great I learned.
A lot from you on that one, though, promise it has been able to answer.
That for me yet, like how do we know you know who wrote the books or who gave us the cannon?
But I also thoroughly agree with what you said about not debating.
Your parents because my dad were a non denom.
Pastor and I've tried it to and dude, it's just yeah, at least, uh, just terrible stuff in the family and it's not what Christ wants.
I don't think no, and your parents, You're never going to convert your family members that way. They're the people that cleaned your diapers up. They're not going to listen to your theological you know, gibbering and jabbering for hours. They don't. They don't care about that. Toby, what's up?
Uh?
I would say there are some, you know, exceptions to that rule. I mean, if they ask you specifically, hold on a second, If your parents ask you specifically, you know, hey, what is the theological understanding the Orthodox Church on the filial? Then yeah, you got to answer them when you shouldn't give give an answer. But you know, just don't debate your parents. Don't try to get everybody at you know, Thanksgiving dinner, you know, arguing over essence, inergy station or
something like that. What's that?
Man? Hi, how are you?
I'm Golod, what's up?
Uh?
Yeah?
My question is so I'm a like just inquiring into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. And my question was I'm slightly leading towards Orthodoxy and I was just wondering what is probably the best church father to go through straightaway to read to become more knowledgeable about Orthodoxy.
Well, I think one of the best routes you could take patristically is to read the Cappadocians, and you'll see that it's very different from what you get in Augustine. So, uh, the capital and the reason the capp Dotions matter so much is that for the Orthodox we hold an ecumenical
council above any individual church father. Right, So as Augustin, as good as he was, like, if his theology is not accepted at the ecumenical council that defines the Trinity, then he's not going to have the same status for us as the Cappadocians would. So if Cappadocian theology is accepted at Constantinople one and It is then clearly Basil in the Holy Spirit, the theological orations of Saint Gregory nazian Zeus and Saint Gregorissa's of various rieties, particularly you know,
against Eunomius. But I'm not going to tell you to read Against Eunomius because it's going to be one of
the most difficult books that you'll read. I would say focus on Basil and the Holy Spirit, Basils against Eunomius and Sant Gregor not sianzras Is theological Orations, because they will give you the best introduction to the Orthodox Catholic mindset on the Trinity and the hyposthetic property, the Father being the sole cause, all of which is really just very different from the speculative ideas that Augustin comes up with from Neo Plaianism and from Plotinus's and neod It's
about how to try to defend phillyoquay and that kind of stuff. So and again, people who are the Latinizers like they act like the latinizing is just this issue that deals with like psa or something latinizing. It also includes things like Augustine literally cribbing multiple sections of the fourth or fifth in ead to prove the phillyoquay. So it's like they don't even realize how deep that that goes. And that's just not part of what we do, Like
we're not into that. And Augustin himself said he would submit his book to the judgment of the Universal Church. By the way, he didn't say I'm going to send it to Rome, because Rome is the final arbiter. He said, the Universal Church can decide, and the Universal Church said, we affirm the Cappudocian teaching. So there you and the Cappudocan teaching is clearly not the same as the Augustinian teaching. You don't have to go very far in on the
Trinity and the Cappadocians to see that. Well, Emmanuel says, this may not be hambergurity, but it might cover it. Thank you. He sends fifty Mexican pesos for ambiguity, Anthony or something. I thought it was like three in the morning. It's only midnight, so we're doing good. What's up man, Hey.
Jay, thanks for posting this.
Kurt Kurt Mormon inquiring into Orthodoxy, Good and Divine Liturgy, pamful of Times, and a couple of services during Holy Week, So well, one.
I just love your your prayers and prayers from your community.
I got a wife and five kids that are all very very Mormon still and not interested at all.
Uh and uh, you.
Know and exploring anything outside of it.
And UH for me right now, what.
I'm struggling with because you know, coming from the paradigm of Mormonism and praying about you know what's true and getting the indigestion and you know, burning the bosom and you know that being the confirmation, all the confirmation you need to know something is true. As I study Orthodoxy
and attend, I'm really really skeptical of my feelings. I've kind of gone, you know, almost a complete other direction where I'm so afraid of preless that I don't I don't want to trust that you know, I'm having a good experience or I'm feeling peaceful here because I don't want to be deceived by by any of those feelings. So how what what advice can you give me on council that how to guess how to navigate that? And you know, I'm not necessarily looking for how do I
know it's true? I think that probably just maybe comes to me over a long experience and you know, going to divine edery and doing more study.
But how do I not shut off?
I guess those good you know, feelings and things that might be coming from from God versus you know.
Yeah, yeah, I think again, like the experience. You just have to judge the feelings and the experiences by the Orthodox theological tradition and also in concert with your spiritual father. Right, So when you've got Orthodox, you'll have a person that will be kind of like the person that you bounce those kinds of questions off.
Right.
So if you feel like, oh, you know, I had this dream and I feel like God's moved me to do this, and that you'll bounce that off of other people. And you know, Orthodoxy has those checks and balances at the firewall, which you know, like these evangelical charismatic sects
and groups they don't have that. So they're very very much prime, uh you know, candidates for the creation of cults because people start thinking like, you know, and Lee does that, Oh, Jesus and Mary are talking to me, and I'm actually the new Mary because I had this vision in the infirmary and all this kind of stuff, and I'm the new female savior. Feminist Jesus and all this insanity. Right, that's all an extreme example of her delusions. But it's exactly what I'm saying. It's like, there's no
guard rails for that type of an attitude. And even though she's an extreme version of the charismatic stuff, it's a it's a it's the point is it still stands.
Right.
It's like in Mormonism, people forget Mormonism is also a charismatic faith that they believe in ongoing public revelation. Some of the Mormon schisms and sex believe in like glossalalia and and new interpreting of tongues and all kinds of nonsense.
So so I think if as long as you're bouncing it off of your spiritual Father and you're within the the guard rails that are established, you don't have to worry about you know, I'm not going to be sieved or something like that, Right, I think I think we're the most sort of