Jamie, could you make me I express?
So okay, we're gonna open it up. Let's keep it on topic.
One plus one plus one equal free icons are Ideala, Tree, Jay, j but Jay, can I talk?
But it wasn't.
Next, cathod draf God is real?
Wife?
Does he allow evil? Why do you pray to dead people? Traditions of men? It's a no brainer. You're such a tyrannical rainer.
Is this your first.
Time on the in or wesh?
I need a changer, Joe can't think of.
These loads your slow boys?
Is this your first time on the in or wesh?
I need to changer?
Joe?
Was that an uncreative foot part?
Unmute, dude?
Stop repeating my name?
Dude?
You Goober's callin or I'll boot you. Where did you get the Bible from? Have you read the Canons of Franzia?
What are you Catholic?
Are you promisants?
I'm not trying to be mean, but do you have an actual argument?
There is only one church? You are in a cult.
You're a goblin, a demon, a boomer?
Quick question?
Do we have any diddyback venerators in the chat?
How is this your first time on.
Being or well, I need a chance take it these loads?
You're slow boys?
Are you?
Is this your first time momby wes?
I need a If you're a wine on front of the line.
I'm mute, dude, what is your epistemic justification?
That argument is circular and you are refuted.
Is this your first time on me? Or where shay I need a show? Can't take these littles.
You're snow boying. Is this your first time on me?
Or where I need to change your show? If you're a lie in front of the lie.
On mute, dude, it's that time to get you're freaking Oh wait, that's the wrong time. That's not this time? Is this time?
So where do we get the Bible from? Did you even read the cannons? There is only one charge. You are in an occult.
You're a gobbling a demon, a bull merchard.
You saw me?
I'm your dude?
Is this your personal webs?
I need a gender jew can't take it.
He's little to your.
Boys on your dude, I want us one plus one equal free.
It comes out the dollar tree.
Why do you pray?
Eat the dead people?
The traditions madden you? Heretic on your fude, is this your per webs shack.
I need a gender jew can't take it.
He's little to your.
Boys, I'm your dude.
What's your pistemic justification?
Welcome in circular.
To Jamie.
At the monkey. You find off in that.
What you're doing up there? Why you scared?
Why you run it roun.
Themy bab.
You ran my manto and from me?
Then till the monkey.
Like the female monkeys.
With the bananas between the trees, hanging.
Down upside down, that's a smile. SI, tell the monkey what you doing to me?
Till it to a monkey, till a mallcky.
Isn't this the trump downs? What's due to me?
That's true?
The road takes you. Chevy is ready to dar No, can't let advertisements ruined the beauty. Welcome everybody. It's that time. It's that time to get down and Sneezy. We're talking about all of the dang seven Dwarfs. Sneezy Snorty y'all, y'all know about Snorty the dwarf. He was over there doing a little of that cocaine. Little little snorty dwarf, like the O Bonn says, there was skanky. He was
one of the Dwarfs. He was a nasty, just trashy kid, grew up in a trailer, drew up, he grew up in a living in out of a bus, and then got recruited into the Dwarf. In the Dwarf. Ops, that was Skanky the Dwarf. There was Snorty, Sneezy Snorty was all about cocaine. Skanky slutty the Dwarf. He was all about hoeing around town. So the allergies are turned up
to eleven. I'm sorry, but you know, it's just how it is living down here in Cuba, down here with Operation Mongoose, Operation Mongoose of the CIA's y'all heard of that. Welcome everybody, It's open for him today. I wanted to try to try a different title. We'll see what happens. Protestantism is false. Prove me wrong, like like Steve Crowder style where you got to prove me wrong, Jay finally
lost it. I don't want people like I do the same nonsense every time I'm sitting in front of this computer screen, every time I'm lobstream, and it's the same nonsense. You would think you guys would know it by now. H Brosey ten dollars. Have you seen what rid von AP's been posting? Yeah, I just DMed him. I DMed him the other day. I mean, I don't know what to say. I mean, what do you want me to do? I mean, I've offered to debate. I've offered to discuss
the topics. I mean, anybody who wants to learn or whatever could always hop on these streams. Is very easy to do. They can come over here if they want to. When you got a debate, Pastor Randy Balls bread in ten dollars, that's one debate. I am scared of. People say, who, why are you scared of debate? So and so I'm not scared of debate anybody except for Pastor Randy Balls. Rozie says. I understand he's new, everybody has baggage, but he sounded like a subverter. To be honest, he needs
to be checked. I mean, if he keeps pushing you know, LPTA for us and that kind of stuff, then yeah, I mean it's unfortunate, but we'll see Kyle Kosha twenty bucks. Respectfully, how is Christianity the One True Faith? Which brand of Christianity? Well, I mean the fact that people disagree doesn't prove or disprove anything. Every position out there is going to have people within it or adjacent to it that disagree with it. But people mistake disagreements and debate, with the truth itself
being unknowable. Which brand of Christianity is a correct one? Well, you're going to have to spend some time and learn about it, because there's no other way really to deal with the competing claims. But just because there's competing claims doesn't invalidate the system itself. Otherwise every system would be invalidated because everybody has competing claims. How can I If I can't trust mainstream media, why would I trust two
thousand year old texts? Well, that's a false equivalence. The fact that something old doesn't necessarily mean it's true or false. But mainstream media has a repeated record of being demonstrably false, So I would just say those are false equivalences. But again, I make the argument, if you're a skeptic, skepticism is self refuting, all right, And if that's self refuting, then what are the options for non skeptical positions? And that's what moves us into tags, what moves us into arguments
for the positions that we have. So if there's a better position, then somebody needs to come argue those positions. But Kyle, you're welcome to call in. It's open for him. We got already about five or six people in line. The link is in the chat. It's also in the show description. You can call in to debate or ask questions right here. Today. I thought I saw gigantic Protestant profiles everywhere and just mega followings of Protestant thought leaders
or whatever they are. So I thought, you know, we spent so much time debating Roman Catholics and Romanclachs are welcome calling today too. I don't care. So it's still somewhat open. But I'm just trying out a different headline, a different title to refute. See if you can get some of these Protestants in here, because multiple Protestants have made videos about me this week. So JW two dollars debate n JF on the role of geopolitics in the Vatican.
I mean, I heard a clip of him the other day admitting that the geopolitical elements have subverted the Catholic Church, so it's difficult to defend it is what he said. I don't know if he's an old clipper or a new clip or what. But I don't know that he wants to have that debate. J Man ten dollars, have a blessed lint. Keep fighting. Thank you, Jordaane Jordaan ten Bucks. You must forsake Yakubian punctuality. Yet today I was on time and punctual. But that's because of yakub Warpick Gaming.
Shout out to Warpick Gaming. He hopped in here, became a member. Remember, you can become a member through YouTube or through the website as well. You can go to the Jaysonnalysis website and sign up. Become a member, get access to all the last ten years of archived lectures, talks, podcasts, interviews, book reviews, deep geopolitical conspiratorial true conspiratorial analysis where we go into espionage and the real that's real conspiracy, right conspiracy.
That's all this like cornball shit like Tartaria and stuff like that. That's that's fake stuff. Real conspiracy is James Jesus Angleton and backdoor channels to foreign nations and JFK. That's real conspiracy. Austin Austin Kyle Bucks, thank you, for all your content, Jay, you help me find in the way to the orthoxy. Appreciate that, dude, Zach fifteen dollars, I appreciate all your work. Are we going to get a Sam Shumun discussion anytime soon? I don't know.
I mean.
Again, we're still discussing the possibility of doing rival presentations on Sam's channel between me and Albrecht, So I don't know if that's gonna happen or when that's going to happen, but it's always they're the possibilities there. Nikki d what's up?
Man?
If you guys would hit like and share, what's up? Nikki dep I'm you, hey, Jake.
Yeah, I just want to say that that the status quo that Protestants enable is perfection. What I just want to say, the status quo Protestants enable is perfection.
You know that what does that matter? What does that mean?
I mean, I mean whole.
White like snow white, whole white and the seven Blood Diamond Dwarfs like the Protestants by their Salvationist theology, you know, they they are in denial that a problem exists and they can just ask for forgiveness on their deathbat about it.
You know.
Yeah, that's a difficulty because there's not really a change that's required in the person ocean apg man, what's up, good, I'm you? Oh wait hello, hey, right, sorry, quick question.
So what's the difference of Like, where do you draw the line between continue with the Old Testament and judea isa?
Well, I think the New Testament lays down some guidelines and then the rest of the Apostolic tradition would be
the other guidelines. So the guidance of the church as the established authority being via Apostolic succession, the College of the Apostles that Jesus set up, they would be able to make further decisions as you see for example in the quarter Disseminarian controversy in the second third century, the Nicene Council ruling on some of these things as to what's appropriate and not appropriate in terms of the Old Testament.
So it's a twofold thing between what's in the New Testament and what the Apostolic tradition and the Apsoltic succession rules.
Okay, so basically, well, correct me if I'm wrong. But what I'm kind of hearing is that the way to so the difference is it's kind of close, like they're pretty related. And the only way to avoid falling into like judaizing you hatra rely in the church, is that what you're kind of saying.
The principles are laid down in the New Testament in general as to what things are fulfilled and which things are still quote binding. But Jesus gave the apostles the authority to bind and to loose and to make those decisions, and their successors have that same authority to bind and to loose, So that means the ability to decide what things are normative, for example, for gentiles to come into the church. And if you look at Acts fifteen, that's
an example of that binding and loosing power. Where the apostles get together they look at the Covenant of Noah and they reason that if Noah was able to be made righteous through the Noeic Covenant, then the expectation should be no more for gentiles that convert to the Church. And that same principle is what you see in the first, second, and third century when the Church has to make similar types of decisions.
Okay, thank you, yes, that was a good question.
Quell quell unbreller, and then we'll go to Erwan.
H.
Brozy sends five bucks and says, lmfao that dude started off son it's goods so as as f but he redeemed himself. He made a decent point. Yeah, I think so cool. A two dollars. I appreciate your work bringing people to the truth. Thank you, man, appreciate that. Theosis Pilgrim ten dollars. You There. Genesis Creation Early Man is back in print.
Yes, I know.
I think I tweeted about it or talked about it on a recent stream. Erwan, you want to I'm mute, Hey.
Jay, I just had a question, who do you think would win in a fight between Yakub and Messiah and sasquestion.
I'm wondering if Yakoub might actually be incarnate as Messiah been Sasquatch. So that's actually a trick question, Joshua. Theosis Pilgrim said that Early Genesis Creation, Early Man, my father siprom Ros is back in print. It's a hardcover, good quality. I laugh pretty hard at Messiah and Sasquatch. Well, I couldn't believe that one of the Mormon prophets claims that Sasquatch is real and it's Kane. We went and looked it up Joshua and mute, what's up?
Man?
Yeah, what's happened? I just have one question. Do you think Protestants are going to Hell or not?
I mean, I don't judge people on an individual basis, but I judge the public confession of their groups. So this is this is what's called in the tradition of legal theory jurisprudence, you know, a public judgment. So public judgment means I'm judging the profession of that group and what they stand for. It doesn't mean that I know
the eternal destiny of each of those persons. But Protestantism is really just a confluence of almost all of the ancient heresies of the first six seventh centuries, all right. I mean, I'm just thinking more and more about how Americanists, you know, Protestanism is and just how you know, it's really just a do it yourself. I don't need anyone else,
I don't need anything else. And you see all of these you know, influencers with all of these you know, millions of people, and it's just like, how do how do people? Does it just never occur to anybody that there's a history to all this stuff. So guys remember looking for people who would like to discuss the topics as listed, particularly Protestantism, but it's also open to Catholics, Muslims, whoever. Quelln Rayler, Okay, I'm mute.
Yeah, I was just went to say anyway, my question is related to eschatology. You know how like the institution of meat, right, God instituted the eating of meat, and after price res Russian, he ate a fish. So do you think that in the Esketon, since there's no death, how are we gonna eat fish?
And like meat and stuff, our bodies won't need that type of sustenance. I think he does it as a condescension to show that it's the same body as before. I don't think he did it because his body needed that sustenance. And in the Esketon, our bodies will not need the type of sustenance that we need now. It'll be a glorified body. So I don't think there will be eating of meat now, Carl Minger, it won't be necessary.
Aka, yes, sir, Hey, I was listening to your Mormon stream the other day, and I was born and raised Mormon.
I actually grew up believing that Gane was Sasquatch.
Oh really, Yeah, so this is kind of widely believed. There are just a few people believe it.
I think it's mainly with the older generation. I was told this by my dad, who was a boomer. He converted when he was in his early twenties.
Wow. Well, so what led you out of Mormonism?
Well, a lot of the history and then it just it just led me to atheism because they believe in they believe in the name, it's a physical body that lives on a planet.
I'm sorry the ad popped on. They believe in what can you repeat what you said?
They believe in a god that has a body that lives out and on a planet.
Yeah, right, Like it's like an alien god. And I just kind of completely Yeah, it's a it's a it's like it's like scientology, like it's a sci fi space opera.
Yeah yeah yeah, And I mean and like Battles for Galactica. Yeah, that's something my dad always told me.
He's like, yeah, that's right in my Mormons exactly.
Yeah. We covered that the other day on that stream because Lords of Colob, that's a Mormon thing, right Colob.
Yeah, Yeah, they'd have hymns to uh p were to hide to Colob.
Well, you know anything else you want to leave us with. I appreciate that.
It led me into atheism for a good fifteen years, and then I found the Orthodox Church and I was seeing into the church in January.
Oh awesome, man, many years. Do you appreciate that? Good to hear it? Yeah? I think it was gonna if I was gonna choose, you know, maybe Star Wars before Disney got a hold of it. Maybe believe believe in that sci fi universe.
I don't know.
I'm trying to think of which sci fi universe I want to live there. Uh But Orson Scott Card is a Mormon sci fi writer, so that makes sense too, because he writes like in his Enders Game and all that, like the not the planets are different religions. So there's a Catholic planet, there's a Mormon planet, and a Protestant planet. If I remember correctly, Jennifer, the Lords sounds like a metal like a death metal man to Lords of Kolob. What's up, Jeffer, Yes, ma'am, I was.
I want to ask about some of your articulations of the monarchical trinitarian you.
So when you describe the difference between the Father, Sun.
Holy Spirit, as the Father is like the source or you know, the fount or give heard a couple of different words, how would you articulate the difference between his being the source of self existence and obviously the Sun and Spirit also being uncreated.
What is the difference between that?
Because it's an eternal generation and any internal spiration, so it's not a cause in a temporal sense or the way that creatures are caused. The more of the Mormons that the Aryans raise this objection to Saint Athanasius when they when the Cappadocians, or when he talked about cause the Eunomians to the Cappadocians, and the Arians to Athanasius, they would say, well, cause implies temporal change and coming
into being when you were not. And the answer is that cause is used in an analogical sense of an eternal causing. So it's an eternal causing and coming forth. It's not a beginning with a temporal sequence of something coming to be. That's why the Son is eternally begotten and eternally generated of the Father. In fact, this is
not just my quote monarchical trinitarianism. It's what the original Nicene Creed says, following the theology of Athanasius, that the Father is the eternal source of the eternally begotten Son, and then the Kappadocians qualify that and make it more specific in their writings to specify that the father's the soul cause Soli, and then the son and the Spirit are differentiated by their respective hypostetic properties, the son to being generated, the spirit proceeding.
So could I think of it sort of like how when Christ becomes incarnate in the flesh, he self limits himself. It's not that he lacks the power when he's human to do the things that are proper to God. It's just sort of the place that is appropriate for the son. So it's not that the spirit or the son necessarily lacks the power to be self existent.
It's just the order that is the most.
I don't know how to if you look at So this is a Muslim argument. It's called the Eunomian premise, and the argument is that in order to be divine, you must have the characteristic of being self existing, or to be assay, And that's actually a logical fallacy. There's nothing about being amongst the class of things that are quote divine or uncreated that necessitates being self existent, because for us, being self existent is part of what we mean when we pick out the person of the father.
The father alone is the self existent one, or the unoriginate one, according to the Kappadocians. But the fact that he generates a son and generates a spirit who lack that hypostatic property does not mean that they can't share or don't have the same nature. So just like a father begets a son, the son derives that nature from the father that begot him right in a human sense, but he doesn't have any less of the human nature because he lacks being the source or the origin of
his nature. So in the same way, you would have to demonstrate that divinity somehow necessarily requires being awse to prove what's called the Unomian premise. And if you watch the way that doctor bo Branson critiques Jake the muslim Ata physician in their debate, is precisely upon this point. Another way to look at this is so, for example, we talk about carnivore and omnivore right to be amongst
the class of things that are meat eaters. Omnivores are meat eaters, but they also eat other things, right, such as vegetables. Of wars do not eat vegetables, they only eat meat, But they're both amongst the class of things, right that are quote meat eaters. It's just that omnivores have more properties or attributes right that pick them out, But they're still all amongst the class that's more general
of things called meat eaters. So do you see that lacking one of the properties does not mean that you're not amongst the same class. So just because spirit and son lack the property of being self existing, does not mean that they lack the divine nature. Because in our theology, self existing one or to be assay is particularly a
property of the person of the father. It's related to the hypostatic properties, and hypocytic properties are not shared, okay, because that picks out the father as the soul cause of the fount, the unorriginal one, the self existing one.
So being uncreated would be obviously all three of them. And then just because I guess my brain is stuck in this like temporal like time for like time matters to me because I'm in time rather than being you know.
The eternal generation. It's just kind of hard to wrap my head around.
But well, it is a mystery, right, It's a mystery that the Father has eternally generated to somebody who read John one, I mean John speaks in that way, right. He says that even when Jesus was amongst us, he was eternal, he was always in the bosom of the Father. He never left the bosom of the Father, even when he was incarnate.
M okay, yeah, that's that's very helpful.
Thank you for that.
Do you mind if I ask about Hebrew six?
No?
Uh, so, I I guess I would still call it. I'm not I wouldn't probably wouldn't call myself a Protestant still, I've been an inquirer for a little while.
But speaking about sort of the idea of you know, being eternally secure in Hebrew six, would this imply if it's not implying internal security, which probably doesn't as I'm reading it, you know more?
Well, remember these are these are Christians that have converted, that have been baptized their Hebrews. So when Paul talks about being enlightened and tasting the gift, he's talking about baptism and Eucharist, and he's talking about becoming a partaker of the Spirit, and he says, you've already tasted of the age to come. Okay, that's not a false believer. That's somebody who's really participated in the grace and in
the Covenant. Yeah, and there's a real possibility of being cut out of that covenant exactly the way he warns the church at Rome and Romans eleven. You guys can be cut out if you're unbelieving, if you're unfaithful, and if you're arrogant puffed up.
So would this imply that if you are at that point where you have been baptized in, you've received the Eucharist, and then you fall away, that there is that there's no coming back from that, that you are.
Crucifying Christ a second time.
If you.
Attempt to come back.
Well, I think that that there's always the possibility of people repenting, and God's grace can reach anyone. But no, if you persist until the end, right, and you die without that, that's the hardening of the heart, That is the rejection of the spirit, right, that's the blasphem of the Holy Spirit. So you know the fact that people might fall away from Christianity and then come back to
it later in life or something like that. I don't think that it's I don't think Paul is saying that a person who doubts and disbelieves can never come.
Back again, Okay, and then just one of those things, if that's okay. I watched the video that you've recommended a couple of times from Orthodox Shahada about the continuity between the Old Testament and the Divine Liturgy, which was very helpful and I'm very thankful for that. By the way, it was a great video. Is there any sort of historical lineage for the sort of chanting or the way that the text is read in the Divine Liturgy?
Yeah, it's exactly. It's directly out of the synagogue, the way that the synagogue has chanters and canters.
Awesome, Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Thanks you.
Those are really good questions. Appreciate that. Jacob Jordain five bucks. I love Sam. But oddly it seems that the claims a Vatican two and him seeing the anti trinitarian errors of Catholicism.
Is not enough.
Well, I mean, you know, we'll see. It takes time. People have to work through these issues. It took me a long time to work through a lot of these issues. So what's up, Jacob? Are you there got anute? Guys, you gotta turn your mic on if you're coming out. We're looking for Protestants, so please don't be all the same Orthodox people to call in every time I do it. Last room, Chrisky.
Master, Hey, can you hear me?
I sort of had like three main questions because I was watching, like I think there were more early sort of videos about tag and and sort of that whole thing.
And I remember I was.
On TikTok yesterday just kind of scrolling through and I ended up debating these Muslims.
And one of the one of the things that was really.
Confusing to me.
I mean, I think you mentioned earlier is the idea that in order to have divine nature you have to also have been unngenerated basically, and the way that the father is Wait, who said that, uh for I think it was a Muslim or something like that.
That's the Muslim argument. That's exactly what the woman before you was saying. Yeah, so you want an answer to that?
Well, so sort of I guess because of the response that I had was a most eloquent way of answering that you did.
But then another thing.
That I was kind of thinking about was sort of the temporal thing.
That's one thing I really did have to get my head around pretty harshly, was.
The idea that even though.
The Son and the Spirit are generated from the Father, that doesn't mean that they don't share divine nature. And it was something that kind of like I understood it subtly, but it wasn't something that I fully understood until I started kind of looking into like different qualifiers, so what divine nature even is?
And then the second thing, the second.
Thing that I have like a sort of question on was specifically about the I don't know I say it properly, but the seven Ecumenical Councils.
Right is that?
So I was I was wondering, uh, because this is one thing where like when I was becoming Christian, I was kind of weighing between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. What it's specifically with the Roman I guess, uh, I guess there's probably.
Multiple points, but with the Ecumenical.
Councils, I don't know which one it was, but it's.
Basically the Uh.
The Roman Catholicism like uh idolization and stuff like that, where you see that like a lot of and this is something that I noticed distinctly, is that a lot of like the idols and the art, like the illustrations they have, they seem almost.
Like very h.
Like very uh.
I just in here would probably be the best way I could put it, though it's probably not a great way.
Yeah, they're they're they're emotionalists, they're sensationalist, they are essentially it's essentially pagan art. So you're asking what specifically rebukes that, Well, if the principles of the Canons of the seven Ecumenical councils lay out the beginning of that, or excuse me, the Seventh Council. So the Seventh Ecamenical Council and its canons mentions icons multiple times in the canons, and it says,
for example, you cannot make images of the Father. Later on, in eight forty three, there is the Byzantine Synod, which we call the Orthodox Church the Triumph of Orthodoxy Sunday. This is when the iconic class were defeated and the icons were restored. That council put together a document which is called the sonatacon Sonoticon goes into great d listing all of the heresies and all the things that are condemned, many different positions and errors. It reaffirms other statements about iconography.
The book you want to read is Theology the Icon Volume one and two by Lasky and Ospensky. Particularly volume two goes into much more detail about the Palamite theological principles behind iconography. There's a whole chapter on that, and then later on you get into the principles that are laid out in the Moscow Icon Synods about why certain things are wrong in terms of iconography. Which icons are heterodox, for example, the ones that teach the Philly oquay. So
all of that needs to be taken into account. And some people misunderstood when I made the icon video. They thought that I was saying that the seven of that con Medical Council explicitly says we reject Roman Catholic artwork. I said nothing like that. In the Orthodox Church, when the eight forty three Council states the triumph of Orthodoxy, that for us is part of the Seventh Council. That's
the victory of the Seventh Council. We don't have this legalistic Roman Catholic view that the only thing that matters is the document that the Pope signs off on. For us, those are holistically part of the liturgical tradition. And so if the eight forty three Triumph of Orthodoxy pronouncements in the Sonoticon become part of the Orthodox universal universal liturgical tradition, for us, they're received, and they're part of our dogmas,
They're part of our tradition. Yes, I know that the Sonaticon has variations in it, and I know that different bishops, even up into today, can add groups that are rejected, such as the Joe's Witnesses, other cults and sex can be mentioned in modern bishops versions of the Sonaticon. But the principle is still the same, and the principles of the iconographic tradition are still the same. And the best book on that is the volume two of Lavsky Knowspensky.
And if you read that, you will see that all of the things that you've heard me argue over the last early years, they're all laid out there. So I'm not making up things or randomly just saying crap, And I have no idea where I'm getting in I'm just asserting stuff. I give you guys the books and the references all the time, but there's a lot of really low quality, low tier, low information voters, especially online, who
don't know any of this stuff. Guys, if you what we have with over a one thousand people a minute ago and we got two hundred and seventy five likes, hit Like, let's put this up to the top. Let's get some good callers, let's get some good exchanges with Wi Fi Gospel five bucks. Hey, what's the orthodox understanding of tewod Peter three sixteen? How did Peter know that
Paul's writing for scripture? Peter was a divinely inspired apostle, and so when he preached or teached, taught, excuse me, preached or taught the Word of God, he knew it was inspired word of God. Likewise, he would have also been able to recognize Paul's authoritative teaching, and he presumably then had access to and knowledge of what's called the autograph of the autogra are the ones that Paul himself wrote.
Nobody has these. We don't have AUTOGRAPHA. All we have in the church are copies of the apostolic writings and the Gospels, and that's why the church tradition is absolutely necessary to understanding and knowing the candidate scripture. And that's a huge point against Protestantism. It's not just the argument as many low tier Protestants have misunderstood, because many bad Roman Catholic apologists say, you don't have infallible pope, so
you can't know the Bible infallibly. That's kind of a bad argument, and we don't go that route because one is an epistemic question about individual certitude and to just say that the pope tells you that just moves a problem back and stuff, because it assumes that you can accurately interpret the pope's teachings. Secondly, that's a question of normativity. Normativity means the ability to buying people. Kind of like the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. It's not everybody in
America just interpreting it the way they want. There's an authority that has the ability to bind people to that interpretation and to bind consciences. And that's something that the Protestant Reformation is premised on. Rejecting. Protestant theology from the Reformation on says that they have the freedom of conscience, the rights of private interpretation. That's a rejection of the
notion of normative authority. That's a different question from individual existential certitude about how do I know what the Canons scripture is? How do I know that Matthew wrote Matthew. Those are difficult questions and they cannot be divorced once you get into this from the history of the church and the history of the bishops and the Apostolic sees maintaining the tradition, for example, that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel.
You see, why aren't you Catholic? I mean, I've got thirteen hundred videos on my channel telling you why I'm not Catholic.
Dude.
That's why we have these open discussions here almost every other day, and all you have to do is call in right here. So if you want to go to the head of the line, and please, guys, I'm looking for people who are Protestant or Catholic or Muslim. I want them to call in. So take your catechumen questions to your priest. I'm not your catechist, Okay. If you don't have a catechist, then I understand you're in a
difficult situation. But every time I do this, all the Orthodox catechumens and inquirers come in here and they pile in and they take up all the time that could go to people who are Protestant or Muslim who need to hear these things. So don't take up other people's times just because you want your question about fasting or calendars or whatever. That's not what this is for. Okay, It's listed very clear Protestantism is false. So I want those people to come on. Please do not bring me
your Orthodox catechuman questions. You do that at your church with your catechists hushed tones.
Yo, can you hear me?
Awesome?
Sweet, I've been a long time listener, so I'm glad I finally have something to ask.
But I promise it's not a catech human question.
So, like, I have an older family member right who's a lifelong Baptist, and ever since I've been getting into Orthodox, he's been more curious about it.
But it kind of seems like that like being a like, so his view, he's.
Super into like Luther and Aquinas, but he also believes in the Book of Enoch when that like contradicts Sola script Torah. And then he's also super into like always telling me about how the elites are doing the Kabbalah rituals. The Trump getting shot was a ritual, and the JFK stuff was a Masonic ritual. So like he's as a Baptist, he's giving this like mystical power to these other like factions, you know.
So and then as a Baptist it leaves, it leaves.
His are sacraments are mysticism as an Eastern Orthodox world just as Christians in general as like merely symbolic and not like giving us any like counter like to you know, counteraction to this like mystical you know, evil or whatever. So like, how does like Protestantism like ultimately leave to like lead to the self defeating worldview where like we're just reduced to symbols.
But then all these other.
Like traditions and oh that's an interesting point. Yeah, So, like Protestantism sees the religion and particularly the way that you know, the Lord's Supper or baptism, right, like Protestantism sees that primarily as a kind of a symbolic function, which is ironic because they have a judaized idea of the sacraments, because their view of sacraments, for the most part, unless they're high charged Protestants, is more or less the
way that we would say the Old Testament quote, sacraments functioned, right, So circumcision or the temple rituals or whatever the Old Testament, which are primarily typological pointing forward to the fulfillment of the New Testament, Protestants really see the New Testament sacraments as functionally no different than the Old Testament sacraments. And the way that Paul argues, for example, and colautions, is that circumcision was the type baptism. The ritual is the reality,
you see. So the New Testament sacraments bring the reality and the power that the Old Testament sacraments foreshadowed, you see. So to go back to a Old Testament notion of what we think the sacraments in the Old Testament, this pure symbolism type of view, like a Baptist, is retrograde, right. It's removing the power. And it reminds me of what Paul talks about a religion the form of godliness but
lacking the power thereof. But they will grant to sorcerers and Talmudic magicians like all this magical power to run giant, huge rituals and all this stuff. It's silly, But I would say if I can, if you said it was your uncle or your dad or whatever, but I would just say, you know, older people are not going to listen to you debating the position. You might as well
just invite him to church or something like that. Unism okay, So if Forrest Drake won't come in here to debate, just to boot the guy like this is okay, he has no idea. Charles Francis, come in debate, you have no idea what we're even talking about. This is so these Protestants are so ignorant and arrogant, they have no idea what even these words mean. And they're just like super ready to debate. This is Protenism is a cancer, man,
It just produces all these idiots. If Charles and the other dude uh don't won't come to debate in the chat, boot these people because they just monopolize the whole chat, and all they don't want to do is span their craft Unism on you man, all right, Okay, if you don't turn your microphone on, you can't you won't be able to speak in the spaces Dylan, what's up man? Shout out to everybody in the chat, welcome, hit like
and share it. We got thirteen hundred viewers right now if you would call in, if you would like to discuss Protestanism, and you can also support the stream bias super chats through stream labs or natively through YouTube. What's up man?
Hey Jay?
Do you hear me? Yes?
Okay, Hey, So I have a question I raised in the Protestant denomination. I would say I'm more like an Orthodox in choir now and trying to try to wrap my head around some.
Stuff to help my wife understand.
So in Protestantism and even in Catholicism, uh, there's a sense of like I think the word is ecumenism or acumenism, you know, kind of like a universal salvation.
As I believe in the Trinity, you believe in the Court.
Do trends.
That's all you need.
And I think even the Catholic Church has you can be an invisible part of communion with the Church. I haven't been able to find an answer to what is the Orthodox position? I know there they say, you know, with the One True Church, it's like Noah's this is where salvation can be found. What is the I guess you know, authoritative stance for right.
So essentially there's no invisible church doctrine. The Church is just as much a visible, real historical reality as Christ's physical body was one united in history. So invisible church doctrine which is the basis for a humanism which is kind of at the root of Anglican branch theory, that's the origins of modern ecumenism. And you're right that it's ultimately kind of a denial of the incarnation, and it's
a denial it's basically a Nestorian version of ecclesiology. So the same heresy of Nestorias to divide the person of Christ from the person to the logos, is applying that same division to the body, the body of the Church, and then to kind of make Christianity dissolve into countless sects. Right, No, there's one church in history. Every one of the ecumenical councils speaks as if the Church is a single, visible
historical institution. And every time that this comes up, you'll see appeals to what the Creed calls the four marks of the Church. I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now Protestants, many of them will confess the Nicene Creed, and they'll say that they believe in one Holy Catholic and Epistolic Church. But of course they don't mean it in the sense of the Cappadocians and the people at the Second Ecumenical Council who compose that part
of the creed. They mean it in the Protestant sense of one invisible church, et cetera, et cetera. It is not what the Cappadocians meant when they wrote that. So, yeah, the Church is a single body, a single treat, a single covenant, a single sheep fold, a single house, a single New Israel. I mean all of the and now ologies even to the New Testament, make it a single institution, not something divided amongst countless sects with countless competing confessions.
And even within the Roman Catholic Church, this doesn't exist because the Roman Catholic Confession allows you to be a uniate, to believe basically most of Orthodox theology, and to do what you want, act like you want as if you're Orthodox. But it's an inconsistent position because many of them don't believe the Council Trent. They don't believe in purgatory, they don't believe back in one. And yet in Roman Catholicism you are bound and are supposed to believe all of
the ecumenical councils that the Pope signs off on. So you see that that right there, the allowance within the Roman system from multiple creeds and confessions disproves the Roman system number one as actually possessing the unity of faith that they claim to have, and number two, it shows that they have contradictory systems within it that are just about political power. The only church confessing the same confessions
of the ecadmenical councils is the Orthodox Church. That's why we always go to the ecaemical councils and their canons. There's nothing to do with whether the canons are infallible. It's a question of whether the canons of the councils express the mind of the church in that century, which everyone admits that they do. But that means that the Roman Catholic view is not true because it does not
confess the principles of those councils. It professes the deviation that begins in the eighth ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, particularly the Gregorian reforms. Dictatus pape. This evolves into unum sanctum, where the pope now becomes a geopolitical world ruler that doesn't exist in the first seven centuries, not even the papal states.
Is that.
That's very new. And every modern historian, whether Orthodox or Catholic, admit it's this now. Papadacus, Sashensky, Mayandorf Kongar de Vornik, they all admit this. The Vatican now admits it eighty Alexandria documents. So the mindset of the Roman Catholic is living as if none of that has has been admitted. Oh no, I don't care about any of that. I'm going to pretend like the donation of Constantine wasn't a
forgery and the pope is a geopolitical world ruler. Still okay, But Dictatus pape And when I'm sunk to say that to be saved, you also have to confess that the pope is a legitimate temporal state power. To be saved, it's not just believe in the Roman Catholic miship the Romans is going to be saved. It's also belief in the temporal supremacy the Roman vision to be saved. Jonathan, it was Colon here turn a fan off, got on mute Jonathan? Hey, yes, sir, Hey Jay?
Sorry?
So the oh first off, really big fan, really awesome to have someone on the Orthodox I had to get perspective on. I wanted to focus on sol scriptura and the concept behind that, and I wanted to first get the premise in this precondition.
So my.
My framework is more in line with how have you familiar with Michael Kruger?
No, okay, uncle crue.
I got out a book called canon of the Deed of the of the Bible based on.
I forgot the guy's name before.
But essentially he's he's making a model where he's talking about a framework to view canonicity of scripture under a self authenticating model, where can't where script itself like authenticates itself.
For it's infallibility.
I know the Orthodox position also has scripture and tradition I.
Believe, so.
I wanted to see if that if health thinking model would be inherently contradictory logically.
I think it would be, because, for example, if the notion of apostolic authorship is part of what we need to know, for example, that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel. There's nothing self authenticating within the other text that tells you that, and that it should be included.
Nothink, So okay, okay, And then how does how does the model like where you have the church authenticating the model for canonicity subvert that, because then wouldn't that be like a version of it, like a regression where people can just argue, or there could be development of canon.
There was development of canon. That's why, for example, you see competing canons for centuries until an ecumenical council in.
The Orthodox or Council of trend or even before that.
No, before that, I'm talking about the Council of Trello's canons being affirmed at the Seventh Council. That's the Orthodox perspective on when an ecumenical council makes a decision about the normative canon for the for the church. That's universal. So prior to that, you have a bunch of different types of canons and competing lists. I'm scrolling down to
my posts on this the other day. And so for example, you have it's not until the time of Athenacious that you get the agreed upon New Testament canon that we all as Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic agree on. But Athenasius, if you read Lee McDonald's book, Who's a textual scholar, a Baptist guy, he admits that Athenasius had to go to Rome to convince Rome to include some of the Catholic epistles and Revelation because Rome didn't even think that
revelation was authentic. So you notice, right there there's an example of process and debate and Patristic tradition and argumentation that is nothing to do with this idea of self authentication. I mean, in other words, the idea that the canon authenticates itself is negated by the actual formation of the canon, the way that it actually happened, as admitted by the Protestant scholars like F. F. Bruce or like Lee McDonnell.
So you have, for example, competing New Testament Old Testament canons until Affinaceous posits in his Festal Letter what we mostly think of as a New Testament canon, but the prevalent Old Testament canon according to the Apostolic canons, Canon eighty five. Are you familiar with that?
Yeah?
So Canon eighty five lists most of the deuterocanonical texts, but it also doesn't have revelation and it includes Clement right.
Listed separately for the No, it does not or has some other classifier for it where it says it's useful but not not not inspired.
Remember, you might be thinking of Laodicea, but Canon eighty five does not specify that. Let me pull it up. We can make sure. Okay, let me let me. Let's make sure. Let me pull it up for the sake of the audience. Now, it is true that so I
can't see it, just adds up. That's fine. It is true that there are some church father that state that the Deutero canon is useful for catech humans, right, So Athanasius says that, but that doesn't that also doesn't mean that it's not inspired or that it's not useful for theology, right, because why would you catechize people with it if it
wasn't use useful for theology. So the fact that it's even called duetero canonical or secondary canons, there's no problem for us in the Orthodox Church saying that here's the Canon eighty five that was normative in the Eastern Church. In this collection of Church law. This is from about three hundred to four hundred a d. And it lists it says five books of Moses, and then it says Judges Joshua, Judges Ruth historical books. And then it says
Judith Maccabees. It says too, but so it includes judithan Maccabees, and then it does not include Judith Maccabees amongst the ones that it says are recommended for young people young people, it says wisdom of syric So you notice that it's not the Dutero canon that's secondary and for Catechisis it just says wisdom is of syric is for catechisas, but it includes Maccabees and the other duterocononical texts as part of canon.
So that means there was when the ecumenical councils went through any type of a theological position, they would use tudor canonical books for a.
Defense or to make an argument.
I know that many church fathers cite Dutero canonical texts for theological argumentation.
Do you know if any of the College of Patriots would use it. I'm just I'm trying to go for more reference.
Off the top of my head. I'm not sure of a ecumenical council citing Dutero canonical text, but ultimately it's not going to matter because what I'm arguing is that the councils of Carthage that include the duterocanonical text, which is identical to the local Romance Roman synod Counts canon, which is what Damasist is called the canon of Damasist, which is why Augustine posites his canon. That's the Carthaginian Western Latin canon that includes the Dutero canon without any distinction.
And what I'm saying is that the Trollo Quinessex Council happens later on in the East, which affirms the Carthage canon, and then the Seventh Ecumenical Council for the Orthodox affirms Trollo and Carthage on this issue. So does that make sense? That's our perspective.
Awesome, Okay, I got everything I need. I got to do more reading on So thank you man you brought me.
Those are great questions and I'm always happy to kind of go through that logic process there because a lot of people are not familiar with these topics. Now, keep in mind, too, there are other earlier canon lists like that one one of the earliest ones that James White brings up in the Trent debate, and he ended up getting humiliated over this because he got it wrong. And I think it's the of Vicentian canon. Let's see here,
or I'm a human LDO of artists, let's see. Yeah, So let's watch this because Sam Schimun calls out James White after the trent Horn debate on this very topic, because in the Trent Horn White debate, White says, oh, there's a canon you know list, that's the Protestant canon list the Old Testament early on with Meledo. But wait a minute, Meledo includes what White doesn't believe, so it was just wrong. He's so excited to Stary Gema take.
Okay.
Of Chronicles too, the Songs of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom, also Ecclesiastes Song of Songs.
So you understand this is James White arguing against Trent Horn that the Protestant Old Testament cannon is there early on, and it's I think it's Meldo's canon. Let's make sure Yeah takes it okay too. Meldo's canon is not the James White Protestant canon. So he just was wrong, and James White doesn't care.
The songs of David, the proverbs of Solomon wisdom also Ecclesiastes song of Songs.
Job.
You remember he said this is the accurate canon. He got the accurate canon. He learned the accurate cannon, which means the Jews accepted the wisdom of Solomon as inspired scripture. See how you just buried himself. Some wan should make a clip out of this. He kept saying, accurate, this is accurate.
This is what they believe.
You just buried yourself, dude, because they accepted wisdom of Solomon as part of their Old Testament as accurate canon, and they accepted a scripture. Please gets a little better. See that dis honesty of this man. Now watch here, guess what is not included? Guess what is not included? Pay attention of prophets Isaiah Jeremiah of the twelve Prophets, one book Daniel Ezekiel Estras. Now some will say Estras
means Ezra Nehemiah, Thehemaiah. They're combined as one from which also I've made dix tracks dividing them into six books. Such are the words of Malito. Guess what he didn't find, folks, he didn't find Esther. Esther was not in their canon.
So I say this, here's what I say.
Watch your watch your.
Note that Malito includes the Big of Wisdom as part of the Old testing canon and does not include Esther. This means that the accurate canonical list of books omit a book accepted by Jamila and include alrighty rejected by Jimmy.
So there you go. James White owned himself in the trent Horn debate by claiming that Melido of Artists had the correct canon. He didn't even go and check to see that it wasn't the Protestant canon for the Old Testament. So hopefully again that's more AMO. But I also hope it demonstrates the point that we were making earlier that the canon isn't self authenticating because it doesn't even make sense. And that's completely divorced from even the Protestant scholars who've
written books on the process of the canon. When you read this process and how much debate there was to then say, oh, but actually none of that was the case. It was all just self authenticating, right, It's just kind of like absurd christ supremacist. I hope these Protestants in the YouTube chat are going to call in with all this yappen? Are you there?
Man?
You gotta mute or what? Guys? If you want to come on, you got to have your microphone capabilities turned on. I don't like there's no one done a space before on us on or something unism. You want to try again. Remember we're not doing cticcumen questions today. This is for Protestants, Catholics, Muslims. I disagree.
Hey Jay, how's it going good?
What's on your mind?
Thanks for having me on the show. First of all, I might be one of those ignorant Protestants you were talking about a minute ago, so I do apologize. I gotta say though I'm a big fan of the show.
I really appreciate what you do.
So I don't know that I'm qualified to speak with you, but I just want to come on the show and kind of talk about something like that you're talking to the last speaker about, Okay, specifically that I understand that the canon may not be self authenticating as such, or like you were just saying, like it's important the work that the early Church fathers and counsels had to go through to establish the canon was necessary. We can all agree on that. But it's maybe, and I hope I
can express this or articulate this correctly. It's not as though because they decided that that's the canon, that that power is in them, they more or less did the leg work that allows us to look back and say, yes, they did make the correct decisions in establishing the canon.
Right.
But the thing is that for Protestantism, classical Protestantism, no post Apostolic writing or teaching is binding necessary and can bind your conscience. And so if you're a Protestant and you believe Classical Reformation doctrine a freedom of conscience and right to private interpretation, there's nothing stopping you from creating your own private canon that you prayed about and that the Holy Spirit led.
You to have.
So you see how That's why it's I agree with you that when the church fathers are quote, recognizing what's canonical, they're not making it inspired. They're recognizing what is inspired. But they're also given the authority to bind and to loose, and thus can bind you to the decision of what is canonical versus what is not. And that's a normative claim. That's normativity in terms of ethics versus the question of individual discovery of certitude or inspiration or whatever. That's a
separate question from like the Supreme Court. Does the Supreme Court have the right to or to bind people to the interpretation of the Constitution. We're saying Jesus gave to his institutional body, the Church, the ability to bind people to these decisions.
I think that's well said, and I think that's a perfect metaphor of a Supreme Court. In some sense, though, if we had a Supreme let's let's say we had a rogue Supreme Court under Biden. He put in, like, you know, six or seven crazy Supreme Court people, we would still know that the Constitution itself is what we hold to. And the errancy, let's say, of the Supreme Court tells us that they're not.
Right.
You know, in some sense, I'm saying, you know, let's speak purely about the Catholic Church, right popes that put into different councils or bulls or whatever that you know, the lady should not read the scripture, or they shouldn't read it without the clergy, or it shouldn't be translated into the common parlance or whatever. Partisans look at that and say, okay, well, clearly this is against what this
is against what the scriptures are about. And so in some sense that I would say, not entirely undermines the idea of apostolic succession, but it at least says, what's more important than.
The change, Right, I understand where you're going with this. It undermines the notion of papal authority, which is a different principle of unity and authority than the Protestant except that actually, with Protestantism it's the individual this private interpretation. With Catholicism, it's the papacy telling you. And the unique position of the Orthodox Church is that it's communal and sinodal. And we would argue that we are the actual historical church.
When there's an issue that comes up in Acts fifteen, it's a synod. It's not one guy being an autocrat. It's a synod. And we'd argue that if you look at the promises that Jesus makes to the church, he says, I will send you the Spirit the Helper, I will never leave you, I will not forsake you. I will be with you until the end of the age, the spirit will guide you into all truth. That's a promise made to the actual college of the apostles, not just
a Peter, but the whole college. And so their successor is not in any individual person, but in their collective body. In college cannot fall away. So the Orthodox conception of the Church not being able to fall away is a collective idea, not individual bishops being exempted from this warning. And so no, we would not say that the Bishop of Rome has sole title to this promise of not falling away. Right, Jesus promises to the whole college, to
the whole body. But yes, absolutely a bishop, a group of bishops can fall away, but never the entire collective institution of the bishops themselves.
No, well said, Well said, well, what do you say about Galatians one to one where? And I know this is obviously apostolic times. So when Paul says Paul, I Paul an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, in some sense, I do look at Paul. You maybe heard this before, but like Paul is someone who wasn't walking with Jesus
during Jesus's ministry. He's almost the prototype of every believer that comes after Jesus's time, Right, he wasn't obviously he saw Jesus, but he wasn't walking with him.
He's like the prototype believer.
For well, I mean we can say that, we can say that any person in the Bible is in some way, perhaps any faithful person in the Bible is in some way a prototype of a believer. I mean, even Rahab the harlot is a prototype of a gentile believer, according to you know, the Church fathers. But that doesn't it doesn't follow from that that every office that they possess
thus then transfers over to every future believer. Right, So I'm not a member of the episcopate, so not everything that occurs in the church that is for a member of the episcopate applies to me. And no, we would say that there's twelve apostles, and if you look at the church, for example, the Book of Revelation, it's a giant city with twelve foundation stones, with twelve apostles names
on those foundation stones. So you must be specifically a member of that twelve to be what Jesus calls the princes of the Church calls you he says, you will judge the twelve tribes of Israel when you get when he is in the upper room talking to them, And we would say that that means that they're they're the foundation stone. So that's a unique role. And Paul was called to that apostleship, but not everybody in the church. It has the role of being Paul.
No, No, clearly, not clearly not. What about this? Maybe I can pose this not so much as maybe I can kind of post this as a question.
In Mark seven to eight crists you leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men. Now, I don't throw that out to say that that's what we're talking about, but I more so to say in is there any sense in which you look at the Eastern Orthodox Church today and say there are places, not in terms of solar scripture or whatever, but just maybe more broadly in which they're holding more to the tradition of men rather than the commandment of God.
Is there any Oh?
Yeah, no, So I think Phariseeism and legalism could be present anywhere. You know, Jesus in fact warns the disciples themselves, right, the very foundation stones of the church are warned about the possibility of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is self righteousness, and uh, you know, majoring on the miners, obsessing over minutia versus the bigger issues, the weightier matters of the law. That could happen to anybody anywhere. You could be in a monastics situation and you could have
you know, pharisaic legalism in the monastic realm. You could have people getting pharasaical about the you know, fasting in the church that happens all the time. People get pharisaical about you know, calendar dates and issues in the Orthodox Church. That happens all the time. So absolutely, yeah, But even that happening in you know, various localized places or settings, even that that doesn't destroy the collective promise to the church. Nick, Nick, mh,
what's up? Yeah, I'm you. I would add two that that same section you're talking about Mark, but in Matthew, it's Matthew twenty three when he's rebuking the Pharisees. Even there he appeals to tradition. Go ahead, and now what's up.
You there?
Nick? Yeah, what's up?
My bad?
I was having some trouble.
Sorry, if the background is.
Too loud to just kick me or whatnot.
So I'm I'm a Protestant right now, but I'm looking into the Orthodox rash and I kind of got some questions. I ran across some crazy interpretations in the past, and this would.
There's a guy named Johnny Chang. I don't know if you ever heard of him.
He's just he has a whole bunch of followers and has a really good testimony.
But he.
Made a question about the Lord's prayer.
I kind of wanted to see what you would say about it.
He said that we don't have to pray the Lord's prayer because it was a past tense prayer, Like how it says.
Like that Kingdom come, that will be done, that like the will of the.
Father already came in the kingdom. So I kind of want to see what your input is on that.
Uh No, I mean, Jesus says pray in this wise, So if it was a past tense thing, he wouldn't have said told him to pray in this way. Every church in history has prayed the Our Father and the Kingdom of God is not just a present reality, it's also an eschatological reality. This is called already not yet in the theological language. So Jesus brought the eschatological reality of the kingdom now, which is in the Divine Liturgy. That's a foretaste of it. But the final full sense
of the eschological reality is at the Second Coming. So it's a both and Jonathan Bursea, but good questions and tell Johnny Chang or whatever his name is, tell them to come in here, give them the link and tell them to come come chat. I just boot these people who are like spamming. If they don't, if they won't come to bay, just get them out of here. They're just wasting everybody's time. Nobody's going to convert from your
Protestants spamming the chat. And I've been hearing your arguments for twenty years.
I know, I know.
Go ahead, man, what's up?
Hey, I'm a first time calling in and I got a weird question for you.
Okay.
I used to be Protestant. Nine years ago I left the church because of what I'm going to describe you. I went to one of the leaders of my church, pastor and a deacon, because I had questions about why there were women pastors in the church, and they basically said I was too legalistic and I needed to go reread acts about Peter's dream, and they kind of ignored me after that.
What would Peter? So the analogy is that Peter's dream was a change of dietary law. So now we have the dream of women pastors. So that's I mean, that's is that what they arguing?
Yeah, that's kind of the sense that I got. Like, my my viewpoint was like, he's the dreams or vision is only about like food. It's not about like women pastors or homosexuality of the church or anything. So what what would you say if somebody like clapped back at you with that.
Well, like we'd explained in the Mormon's dream the other night, there's a finality to divine revelation first and foremost, So when the last apostle died, there are no no new divine revelations in the sense of public theological binding ideas any for us, any say, Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church. It's not a new divine revelation. It's really just specifying and explicating what the Church has already taught in its
apostolic deposits. So, for example, Zecharai thirteen Daniel nine twenty four Jude three Glatians one. You look at those passages and you see that there is a finality to what we call revelation, and that right there cuts off any cult claiming new revelations. Now you're talking about liberal Protestant churches who say that there could be a new truth
about you know, skittle stuff or women preachers or whatever. No, first of all, that's outlandish to begin with, because we can cut off all the cults with whether it's the Mormons or whether it's the Muslims with their new prophets. There are no new profits. Profits are done prophets. Jesus says in Luke sixteen sixteen that John was the life asked of the prophets, so there's no such thing as an Old Testament prophet. And when John the Apostle died,
there's no more new Apostolic teachings or revelations. That's why cults like Mormons or Muslims require new divine revelation that compliments or quote corrects the old revelations.
Awesome, I guess I have one more follow up question because of that, and and sorry.
If it's really stupid.
I'm a.
Good questions.
So in that guard, then, isn't.
One of the fruits of the spirit prophecy?
Or maybe I just have been right, but that's right. So that's during the period this is called the Intertestamental period between the Old Testament New Testament, right when the Church is being established at Pentecost. In the Book of Acts Paul's writing to the Corinthians. Yes, at that time it was necessary that there be a lot of these manifestations like that, and so you could have the Holy Spirit speaking through Agabus the prophet in the Book of Acts,
for example, or whatever. But that is still that period prior to the death of the last Apostle John, And I don't think it's accidental. It's providential that at the end of John's Book of Revelation he says, don't add to this, there's no more adding to the divine revelation. So that kind of is the ceiling up a vision and prophecy that we read in Daniel nine twenty four
to twenty seven. It says in the Messianic era, when the Messiah comms, there will be a ceiling up of vision and prophecy in the sense a public divine revelation. And what binds everybody. That doesn't mean that there's no more miracles. There could be a miracle. God can do what he wants. God can give a saint a dream or a vision of a clairvoyance or whatever. But that's different from public divine revelation that binds everyone in the church.
And we know that because in the second and third century there was a group that arose called the Montanists, and Montanus claimed to be a new prophet who was given new divine revelations in the church. Out out of hand rejected Montanism.
Man, I'm gonna be honest.
You used a lot of things that I honestly have not heard of or words that I haven't heard over before.
But listening to you and other Orthodox.
Public figures has has encouraged me to go get.
Yeah, well just yeah, I really appreciate it. Yeah, get an orthodox study by it will take your time, you know, write some of the ideas down if you want to go double check it or whatever.
You know.
The the idea of Montanism is is, you know, just look up what the histor just just even Wikipedia would be good on something like Montanas M. O. N. T. A. And US and the Montanists and that early charismatic movement of the second third century, which by the way, claimed Tertullian as one of its member. Totullian left the church
and became a Montanist. And so this early version of charismaticism, by the way, it also shows that all the crazy heresies that we see today, they were already there in the early Church in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century. Even in the first and second century. You got the Judaizers like Bryce and Gray, you got the charismatic like Joseph Smith, Ellen White Pentecostals. All of these mistakes were already there and already rejected. Truth talker, by the way,
give me just one second. It's freezing Colin here, gonna turn the air conditioning down. All right, truth talker, what's up? Man gonna? I'm you hey, but sorry, I didn't hear you speaking. There must have been a delay. What's on your question?
You know, I just had a question.
I'm just joining the space last few minutes and having heard the first part of it. So I grew up Southern Baptist, me too, and uh so I'm curiously that's been called so you know, I believe I know I've been reading up on you know some of the some of the early even Catholic church fathers, and you know, not so much Orthodox, but I'm reading up.
On that, and well, well we have the same church fathers for the first thousand years, so right, right.
Right, So so to my knowledge, we believe the same obviously, you know, the Trinity, the Triyan God.
Right.
So when when the titles Protestism is false, I just real quickly.
I mean, not to go too long, but what do you mean by that?
And then I had a couple of follow.
Up questions, Well, uh, it's true that in terms of what we verbally say, when we say we believe in the deed of Christ and the Trinity, that's true that, yes, we agree Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, everybody agrees that there is a Trinity and that Jesus is divine. But actually the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is not the same as the Doctor and Trinity in either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism.
So we have a unique doctrine of the Trinity which posits a strict view of monarchical trinitarianism and the rejection of the philioque, as well as the doctrine of the uncreated energies. Those are essential, absolutely necessary teachings of the Orthodox Church about who the Trinity and who Jesus are. And also Protestantism classically speaking or in terms of historical Protestanism is defined by its confessions, and so this is
called classical Protestanism. Even the Southern Baptists have the Southern Baptist Statement of Faith everything something like that. So even they have like a general layout of the principles that they believe, you know, confessional Protestantism, whether it's Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, they all have their public professions of faith. And we would disagree with the solas solofide, you know, sol scriptura. We would also disagree with the notion of the rights
to private interpretation. We would disagree with a totally unbounded notion of freedom of contents of worship that the classical reformers taught. So there's a lot of different ways that that discussion could go, but those are the basics.
So I would agree that there's probably some differences, I think, though I think that the main I think the main point I want to maybe go with you on just for a couple of minutes is the you know, uh, the solo interpretation, I think, at least in my church. So I'll speak on my personal experience. My pastor used to say, even at a very young age, for myself, there's no such thing as your personal interpretation. There's only the truth, and then there's false interpretations of the doctrine.
Right.
So do you think that what you said about how the Protestant churches kind of have their own Oh, this is what I got, this is what I feel about.
Is that unique to a.
Small number of churches or do you think that that's just kind of a whole of Protestant faith of Well, I don't need I don't need the clergy to tell me.
Well, I don't need scholars and.
Tell me what this means.
This is how I feel about it.
Is that is that kind of what you think is?
Well, I mean it could apply to that, but I mean beyond just that question of I understand that many Protestants and Evangelicals would would recognize some degree of authority for elders and you know, pastors and presbyters. But I'm saying it's a fundamentally different principle of church governance. It's an episcopate, it's Apostolic succession. It's the necessity of Apostolic tradition to know what the Biblical canon is, for example, hence why we have more books than the Protestant canon.
So all of those elements go into it, as well as the separate issue of the successors to the apostles not just having the right to state their opinions, but actually to bind people to an interpretation. So for example, at the Council of Nicia, they don't just kind of give an option for Arias and say, look, Arius, it'd be nice if you agreed with us, but if not,
you can go start. You know, the Aryan stripmall church, you know, if you want no. They believe that they have the authority, like Paul told the church at Corinth to excommunicate people and hand them over to Satan. And that's why the church says we excommunicate areas he is of the double you know, he's out. And ultimately ex communication is intended to have a remedial effect. It's not just to quote damn people, but it is a real power and authority that you do not really see in
the Protestant mindset. Precisely because there's a tension in Protestant theology between the right of private interpretation and the freedom of conscience, and the so called authority of a minister to bind people to an interpretation and to excommunicate them.
Yeah, and this will be my last talking point. I know you got a lot of people that probably want.
To come up.
I think that maybe then, just hearing, because this isn't the first time I've had this conversation with someone in orthodoxy. I think the more I hear it, where I realized that maybe my circumstance may have been unique in the way that our pastor guided our church.
Doesn't seem like you got it in in.
A typical Protestant type way.
But uh, you know that being said, I think that you know, maybe maybe maybe.
You can give your opinion that Apostolic succession, and we believe is when Paul talks to Timothy that he taught for three years, day and night in Ephesus x twenty, and then he lays hands on Timothy. He tells Timothy not to hastily lay hands on anyone because the gift to the Holy Spirit has passed on That for us is apostolic succession, which is a real power. They shouldn't
be given hastily, and it's modeled on numbers eleven. When you know you have the elders being laid their hands by Moses, and then it says the Holy Spirit's given by Moses to the elders. This is mirrored by what Paul's doing. And most Protestants do not believe that in the laying out of hands there's an actual transference of power by the Holy Spirit. Hence they don't scary well, they don't believe in They don't believe that it's a
a sacramental power. They just kind of see it as a committee appointing you to be a pastor or whatever.
Yeah.
No, I can see where that can be a problem because that's anti biblical for them to say that it is insignificant.
Anyway, I agree with you on that.
So all right, Well, I look, I said, man, I don't want to.
Take up too much time.
I appreciate I camming in your spaces.
Luther. Hey, how's it going, Yes, sir.
Uh, I was listening to one of your streams a few days ago and I heard someone comment that concessional Lutherans are your greatest fear.
Oh yeah, terrified.
Thought that was funny. But I haven't heard a lot of confessional Lutherans.
Call in, Well, there's not that many that are out there debating, so that's probably a better explanation. Yeah, I would agree.
So I had a few questions. First, one would be when it comes to the philioque.
I think I was.
Listening to your.
Conversation slash debate with Redeemed Zoomer, you know.
I'll touched on that a little bit, and he got into the idea.
That if if we say that the spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, that that in some way onto logically subordinates the spirit.
Right, because you're giving you're giving an attribute. You're giving a positive power attribute to two persons that one of them lacks. And the Cappadocian dictum of all trinitarian theology of the Second Ecumenical Council is that there's nothing that all three persons share that's not a property of essence, and anything that is unique is a property of a single person in the triad. So, for example, to be
the son, that's the unique property of the son. Sonship is not shared, and it's not a property of the divine essence. It's unique to the second hypostasis of the son to be the cause is unique to the Father.
That's his hypostatic property. So cause in the Trinity cannot be shared without creating a diad where you have two persons that form a principle of unity that the Holy Spirit does not have or is not part of, because no one believes that the Holy Spirit spirates or generates any persons, you see, So he lacks this positive power or attribute. So there's no such thing in trianitarient theology
as attributes that two persons share that one lacks. So cause must be restricted to a hypostatic property and thus only had by one person, the Father.
All right, that makes sense to me.
That's the that's the orthodoxology. You're already orthodoxylia.
Necessary.
You mentioned a council that discussed.
Well, the second Ecumenical Council is the normative definition for Trinitarian conciliar theology. The Trinity doesn't become a focus of councils uh until the Palamite Synods, and that's in the Middle Ages. So basically the first econmenical council is the d do christ Athanacious areas et cetera. Second Ecumenical Council is the Trinity, and it's Cappadocian theology that dominates that. That's basal of cesarea. Uh, that's Gregory Nazianzus and Gregor
of Nissa. Those three church fathers are the theologians par excellence and particularly Gregor Nissa of the Second Ecumenical Council. So Trinity doesn't get debated much because the next several councils focus on Christology, and then Trinity comes up again in the Energies in Phillyoquoid controversy of the Byzantine Church versus the Council of Lions, in Rome, in the West, and in the Council of Florence. So trinity doesn't be
an issue anymore until then doesn't become an issue. And the Cappadocian dictum is whatever is a common property is shared by all three, and whatever is a hyposthetic property is only had by one.
All right, I haven't studied much of that, to be honest with you, I'd be curious. So why you think the Western Church just kind of ignored that concept.
I don't think they ignored it. I think that Latin theology. Uh, well, in the case of the Second Acadomical Council, Rome didn't accept that council. In fact, the council has had out of communion with Rome. It was presided over by St. Melidius, and at that time was in schism with Room. It's called the Malician schism, and Rome didn't accept that until about two or hundred years after Calcedon. So Constantinople One was not accepted in the West until centuries after Poblio.
But was Rome in or I guess it would be the Western Church. Were they in communion with the Eastern Church.
For a time even Yeah, broadly speaking, yes, broadly speaking yes, but I mean the.
Yes.
So after Augustine you have the dominance of his Neoplatonic influenced model of the triad based around Neoplatonic doctrines of simplicity. So Augustine starts with Plutonian definitions as to what simplicity is and must be, and then Trinity has worked into that. So we do not in the East accept his model of the Trinity because it was not accepted at constantinble One.
All right, so it's Augustine's fault.
Then, well, it's not one person's fault. It's a series of issues of theological assumptions about metaphysics that take many centuries to kind of come true fruition. So that's why we don't reject the West until they dogmatically state their position in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. That's when you find a real split between you and West.
Okay, if you don't mind, have another question.
Okay, I think this was another thing that came up in that conversation with redeem Zuomer. But uh, and it's come up a lot. But the idea that the Protestant view of imputation or I mean it relates to justification, also that it is somehow nominalist.
Help me understand that.
Read Haiko Oberman's book about Luther being influenced by William of Aackaman Gabriel Bile, and that will explain how that was the first time in history that you could have a person positing the idea that God can pronounce something and it be a legal status, completely divorced from the ontological status. So God can call me righteous even though I'm wicked. Nominalism is the philosophy that facilitates that.
What would you say to.
Response is that basically, it's not it's not that it doesn't have an ontological basis.
Because it's but that is the Protestant view. The Protestant view is in terms of souls, tour and justification by faith alone, is that when God pronounces you righteous, it has nothing to do with anything in you or that you do. It is solely on the basis of the imputation in Christ's work. Well, I don't know.
I tend to think of it more as having a union with Christ aspect to it.
No, No, the doctrine of justification in classical Reformation teaching does not posit that the basis of the legal imputation is anything that you do. That's Luther.
I don't know.
You don't know. I mean, I've read Luther's commentary on Romans is commentary on Galatians. You don't think he teaches that.
Yeah, Well, he might teach something like that, or he might He might be kind of inconsistent because he also speaks very highly of baptism in it that in baptism, that's that's when we are clothed Christ's righteousness. I'd also go to Romans six, like we we truly die with Christ's in baptism and are.
United to him in that way. Yeah, I understand. He teaches baptism regeneration, but even baptism regeneration, the gifts and graces of that come to you because you're elect right, So he believes in predestination like Augustine does. Se the actions and works that you do, even going to the baptismal font. In Luther's view, it's God that caused you to get there and to be baptized. So even those works are the works that God caused in you. Maybe maybe somewhat hold on, hold on, hold on, you say,
maybe somewhat. Have you read Bonda of the Will, I've started it. Okay, Well, that's why he's got.
A strong, a strong predestination view.
And he says what I just told you because I read this book twenty years ago. Yeah, well, I know.
We also just believe in infant baptism and that all babies who.
Are I know that, but that still can fit within an Augustinian predestinarian model. Augustine believed the same thing, that infants who make it to the font were destined to be there. In Augustine's model, he doesn't believe that that necessitates that you get the gift of perseverance, so you might fall away in the Augustinian model. Luther's model is more like a well, if you fell away, you were never really elect So I know he's not a Calvinist
because he believes in a baptism regeneration. Calvin does not. But I assure you that what I'm telling you is correct. I had when I was a Calvinist. I had a period maybe a year, where I was tempted to be interested in Lutheranism, and so I read about six or seven of Luther's books twenty years ago. But I eventually was not convinced because Lutheranism is crystologically erroneous. And I read Luther's debate with Jan Eck, and if you read the full debate, it's pretty funny. And I found k
to be the winner of that debate. But I thank you for your questions. Uh, we're looking for Protestants tonight, so I see a lot of Orthodox guys. I'm asking for Protestants, Holy Assassin, what's up? Protestants or Catholics are Muslims tonight? Please? If you're an Orthodox catechumen, don't bring you.
What's up?
How's it going your mind.
Yeah, honestly, I mainly wanted to kind of discuss the Orthodox Church.
View of the Old Testament, but I I just had a quick question.
So I've heard you say that, like when you're when you are defending the Orthodox position on justification, you say like that, even like putting your faith in Jesus is a word you do right with Like, ha, do you reconcile with that? With Ephesians where Paul says that.
You know that salvation is a gift, Jesus is the one that says this is the work of God, that you believe on him that He's sent.
Are you there?
I can't hear you, So I don't know if you dropped off for what. Yeah. I don't think there's any discord between the idea that works are necessary and that their gifts of grace. The only difference is that I don't believe in the Lutheran view that God is directly causing me to do the good works. There's a cooperation that goes along with me working with God. And that's why Paul can say that the only faith that counts this is Paul, not James. Paul says, the only faith
that counts is the faith that worketh through love. And when he lists what love is and verse twenty thirteen, it's a bunch of works. So Paul teaches the necessity of works. But the works, as Augustine says, themselves, are also divine gifts of grace. That doesn't mean that I don't cooperate. But I can still say that my good works even though I do have a synergy that God created me to have as a created being who cooperates with God, like Paul says, Paul says, I am a
co worker with Christ. Is Paul detracting from God's grace because he calls himself a coworker. No, and so likewise we are co workers. But get the works themselves are also done by grace. If you want to come back, try again, if you're at Mike's.
Working, you can hear me.
Yeah, yeah, mat, I totally got disconnected. So yeah, So the Orthodox Church, right, you have a canon? So like what's the basis of the Orthodox canon? Because and like, how do you even trust that the Orthodox is right when they determined that this particular book belongs to canon, Like what is the reliability of that perce it's the same as.
The reliability that you you would use. Right, So I don't know if you did you hear the explanations or did you get booted out? Right? Jesus says, this is the work of God that you believe in him that he has sent John six twenty nine. So that wasn't me saying that it was quoting Christ calling faith at work.
Okay, Yeah, I kind of got booted out by accident.
Body here thatch okay. And then I said that Ephesians when it talks about the works or that we're not saved by works that we do, but by grace, that doesn't mean that there's not a requirement of us doing works. It means that our status and our interests into salvation is not something that we deserve or earned because Jesus saved us, right, Jesus died for us. We didn't tell him that what he needed to do, and we didn't earn his death. That was all done out of his
over abundance of love for us. So, but that doesn't mean that I don't synergize with and work with God work out my salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul says. Paul says he's a co worker with Christ, and Paul says that the only faith that saves is the one that worketh through love.
Fair point.
So just another question before I move on to the actual Old Testament arguments that had so like the proudence in prices of like faith is what saves you. But like the words there they just like sanctify you, Like that's what you do after you get justified, right, So like do you agree with that?
No, because justification in the Bible and in the ancient world was not a pure legal standing, and that's why Luther and the reformers needed the philosophy of nominalism, which divorced the actual reality from the name or the title of it. That's called nominalism. The ancient world didn't have nominalists really, So anybody who talked about in the ancient medieval world as being quote righteous or being just that meant they had the actual ontological power and quality of
being that. It wasn't just a legal status.
Fair point.
So this is where I wanted to get into, like
my arguments, let's say, like against the Orthodox Church. So you know the Orthodox Church they have a different Old Testament canon, and so I was just wondering, like sure, like you know, there's the idea that the church has the authority to decide, you know, the canon for the Old Testament New Testament, But what is the basis for accepting the Old Testament considering that, Like when I was doing research as well in my personal research, it showed that it led me to believe that a lot of
the scholars right the books of the Old Testament they have been edited out and then like some of the authors are unknown. For example, even the Book of Isaiah. I think I had the Orthodox Study Bible that I have, Like they kind of just give a generic traditional answer, which doesn't really work.
So for the Book of Isaiah, for.
Example, I think the Orthodox City Bible does say that that it was written by the prophet Isaiah, but you know there's nothing like there's no good evidence.
For it, and like all the how do you know that?
No.
In fact, the the Dead Sea Scrolls contained old ancient text of Isaiah. So I think the Dead Sea Scrolls is one of the things that is an attestation to the validity of Isaiah. And I mean you can say that, I mean, if you're going to read a bunch of like higher critical stuff I mean, they're going to say that any of the Protestant stuff you believe is also false. So I mean to use higher critical stuff to prove Protestantism unless you were an atheist. And maybe you're already atheism.
I don't know, but to me, it seems like it's a double edged sword. Kov, what's up. The reason that the duoconomical texts are in the Bible is because the apostles have they used primarily the septuagent and the subtu agent included the dudo chronical texts, and that's why the Apostles cite and refer to the duo canon many many times.
Go ahead, Hey, j how are you doing?
What's up? Man? I'm good? How are you?
So?
I was raised in a non denominational church, went to Sunday School, went.
To youth church, and you know, whole manuorids.
Kind of stopped going to church.
It was, you know, very low church.
So I didn't feel too bad about like not going when my parents weren't making me anymore. But recently I just had a daughter and I'm like, I, you know, I got to get my family back to church. So I start looking at non anominal churches near me, and I couldn't really find one, but I found.
A bunch of other denominations.
I started looking into those, and I realized I had no idea about theology. I just got a couple questions for you, Okay. So I heard a lot of like, you know, the canon and all that stuff.
Was it just Martin Luther that took.
The books out and now all Protestants follow that?
Well, he was the first.
Uh.
And then you had people who were humanists, and that doesn't mean secular humanists, but like Theodore Beza and Calvin and other reformers were very into a movement at that time called humanism, which was a desire to go back to the original texts, languages, and sources. So it was kind of a movement that amongst intellectuals at that time to prefer to look at, say, the Hebrew text versus the Greek translation of the subtu agent. So that also
was part of the motivations. It wasn't just well to do what Luther said, right because Calvin and Calvin's not He might respect Luthor, but he's not going to just
do it because Luther said it or did it. Calvin was a scholar of his own mind and devising, and so he was interested in going back to Hebrew and Greek texts, and that was part of the reason why they thought, well, that would lead us to the masoretic texts of the Jews versus the Canada Scripture that the that the Latin Papal Church had normalized.
Got it?
Okay, thank you?
So I heard I've heard you.
In past videos talk about, you know, the five solas. Now you are you just against sol scriptur and so or.
Is there the other three that you I mean?
I think the way that classical Protestantism brings the meanings of those terms out, the way it fleshes out the solas, we would as Orthodox disagree with all the solos the way they define them.
Okay, Okay, Now something I hear.
So basically, I'm a slow boy, and so learning like by reading is hard. I've been listening to a bunch of Christian apologetics and debates and stuff. So I hear a lot of Calvinists, and I'm sure many other.
Protestants say this as well.
But like they say like by or by grace through faith or something like that, and then they'll turn around and then say by faith alone. And I don't know if you've heard the by grace through faith.
Or something like that.
I used to be a Protestant with the prost seminary bro.
So when they're saying that, what does that mean versus just so.
The assumption is that human operation, energy and activity can in no way tribute to the root and ground of salvation, because this would be to detract from God's glory, in God's sovereignty, in God's grace in salvation. So, if you have anything to do with it in terms of the legal status of your justification and the imputation, you're basing your salvation on works. You're basing your salvation on yourself self worship, will worship, and you're detracting from God and
you're worshiping yourself. It's an idol. This is the classic Protestant Reformation preachy way to go after any notion of synergy or synergism. Even though there's many arguments in many ways to combat this. I've listed several already. Tonight. Jesus calls faith a work in John six twenty nine. This is the work of God. Jesus says that when God speaks, it comes about right when God speaks to create the world. It happens. When God speaks into our hearts, it happens.
So there's no such thing as God speaking and it not being efficacious. Oh, God calls your righteous, but you're filthy rags, You're an evil, wicked thing. But that's the actual basis of both Luther and Calvin's doctrine of justification by imputation and faith alone. Even the action of you believing in Luther or Calvin's system is not the basis of your salvation. That is also something God caused in you, and thus that removes you from having any contribution to
the salvation. When you do good works and when you are sanctified, those are all flowing from the justification status that you got, which has nothing to do with you. So you do contribute to and cooperate in sanctification, but that sanctification process has absolutely nothing to do with the original justification status or the regeneration status. Even though Luther's a little inconsistent on that, Luther would just say, well, God caused you to get to the font. So even
baptism regeneration in Luther's mind is still somewhat monargistic. Again read bonded to the will or read it twenty years ago. Luther believes that God's the direct cause of everything in your life, including the good and bad works. Calvin's not that extreme. He says, no, if there's anything good in your life, that's God, anything bad that's you. But even the good works are tainted, filthy rags in Calvin's view. So you see justification in the classical Protestant systems are
very precise, they're very legal oriented. They're strictly legal status positions, not based on ontological realities. I'm not saying that the Protestant positions don't believe in antological change in you. They do, but the ontological change in you that ultimately, this sort of sanctification in your process of being made holy has nothing to do with your original justification legal status that is only on the basis of Christ's work and ultimately
whether you're elect or not. And that's both Luther and Calvin's view because both believed in unconditional election because they followed Augustine very strictly. Okay, what's up, Jake Moore? Five dollars? I'm a Catholic, but for the win, very heavy, Jay, have very very I don't know what that means. Fw J heavy Hold on a second. What do you know about? Just one second? What do you like about Shamoon? What do you take issue with? Again, We've addressed this countless times.
I've done many, many, many streams and talks, talked to Sam Schumann all the time. But Sam is at a position where he believes that all of the Apostolic churches have a sort of a common Apostolicity, but he doesn't believe in a single divine institution per se, and so he says he's not sure which of these. So I would take an issue with that because obviously I promote the Orthodox Church. Okay, what's up?
Hey, Jay?
How are you good?
Nice to meet you man, I've been listening to you for years, we never actually spoke with you in person.
Hey, thank you.
So first, I just want to say glory to Jesus Christ, and I really hope that this conversation can be fruitful and we can both you know, remember that first and foremost as Christians, we need to treat each other and love and respect. So why is it that you get nervous as soon as you come up, but before you're like completely calm what so weird.
No, I'm saying, Oh, I'll tell you. I think you're talking about me.
And I was like, oh, no, you're you're a vetman. Yeah, So first I did want to ask you. So I was listening to your conversation the other day with that the Joseph guy, the Ben Joseph what was it?
The was he Mormon?
Oh? His name was Robert Gerr. You talking about that guy?
Yeah, yeah, saying that like the Joseph and the New test Yes.
The two messiahs that the Talmut has.
Yeah, right, And I was just thinking.
Well, maybe I'm a prophet because my middle name is Joseph.
So there you go. How do we know it's not about you? Maybe it is, Hey, it could.
Be God forbid. So I had a question in that conversation.
And I am someone who believes, well, I used to believe very deeply in the pre sup based on the teachings of Van Till and Bonson. I got introduced to them, read their books. I've had some difficulties with it. So I was hoping first that maybe I could share with you some of my difficulties because I do believe that it debunks atheism, like atheism and agnoscissism, I do believe.
My issue is how do I defend it.
Against other transcendental justifications, other transcendental roundings, or when they do the whole like, well, I have a rock and his name is Paul, and he has all the attributes of the Christian God except for this one thing that he's like he lied once or something.
Right. Well, we've addressed that, and I'm not saying this to be rude to you. We've addressed that many, many, many times, because many people have brought that up. And I argue that the Monson van Till crowd could only get so far with the argument because they had a defective Calvinist theology, so they didn't have a good Trinitarian
model to work with. And also they didn't have a lot of the toolkit of the Christian metaphysics that we have as orthodox Orthodox theology and metaphysics is very vast and very it's a better toolkit. I don't have to say it. So when I make the tag argument, I argue that depending upon who I'm debating, but ultimately speaking, it's not just a defense of an abstract conception of a deity that reconciles one in many or an abstract deity that's like a math problem or something like that.
You're actually arguing for the entire Christian worldview, and at times Vonton Eventil would actually say that that, they would actually make that point. So if that's the case, then the whole world view is actually grounded on trinitarian theology. And if orthodox Trinitarian theology is a correct Trinitarian theology, then you need orthodox trinitary theology and the metaphysics that flows from that. So you need the essence introducecinction, you
need the low Gie doctrine for divine conceptualism. You need all kinds of things that are just not in the Calvinist mindset to make it work. To refute, furthermore, on a more basic level, when somebody says something like, oh, well, my rock, I have a rock that has all the same attributes, Well, first of all, it would not be the same attributes if it's a rock. A rock is a created thing, so to give the rock all the
attributes of the Trinity would be absurd. But beyond that, it's even more flawed because the Christian paradigm is not just an abstract conceptual list of propositions or doctrines or ideas like math problems or sets or something like that. It's actually a historic religion, so you actually need the incarnational aspect, God stepping into time and space, the Son of God becoming man. That affects our view of history. God stepped into history, so history is now part of
the Christian paradigm, you see. And so this atheist, this specuative view of the trinitarian rock God, would not have all the same attributes. It would also be an obvious copy paste from the already historically grounded and situated religion of Christianity.
Okay, do you have any books that I could read other than because I'm pretty much done with Bonton. I was reading his how he kind of interprets the van Til because man Till is very heavy, so he tries to come in and kind of interpret it for someone that's a little more late. But like you said, there's issues with that, and this dude just keeps repeating himself over and over. I'm like one hundred pages in and
he said the same thing like twenty times. So do you have any other books that you would recommend for the precept that I could learn a.
Little bit more honestly, not really not from them. I would say watch all of our old transcendental argument and precept videos going back last six years, because we get into all the all those questions, all those questions that all those questions that you're asking. You know, we actually have dealt with us for a long time. So that might be a better route than saying, oh, go read Bonson here, because Bonnson and Ben Tall are not going to deal with those questions. They don't have the tool
kit to deal with it. Modernity, what's up? Even though, like you said, they did get so far with tag recovering areaan three dollars. In my opinion, the only thing left to debunk in the Protestants is conservative non Calvinist high churches that claim up so succession in Liturgic War. So Anglicans, well, that may be the case, but there's not a lot of those. I mean, I've had like
maybe two Anglicans ever call into debate. So I mean, if that's what's left, then we're doing pretty good because there's not a lot of there's not a lot of loud Anglican voices. Although I did try to get that Black Day with Afro Calvin Robinson or whatever his name is. We were having exchanges back and forth before he did his faux tiny mustache man debacle thing, which was kind of ridiculous, and I think his Anglican synod made him
step down. We're just in this is such a weird time to be alive where Kanye and Anglican black dudes are like doing Roman salutes and putting up tiny mustache man symbols. Like, it's just such a weird time to be alive. I don't even know how to process it. Like I'm not saying Calvin Robinson is a tiny mustache
Man follower. I know he's not. But we were actually discussing having a kind of a debate, and then he just kind of wind and bitched about me challenging him to a debate when he said he would debate people. It's just and by the way, like to give a shout out to Dasha, I don't have anything against this girl she put up. By the way, she was on Sam Hyde's Perfect Guy Life, like right before I was like a week or two before me, maybe a month before me. I think she's an actress in some series.
I forget what, But she went from being on the left, and she was part of Chapo Traphouse, remember that podcast. And then now she is going to an Eastern Catholic church and she's always tweeting about I'll debate anybody about worths like stuff, and I'm like, let's do it, and uh, I'm not going to be mean, and then she's like, oh, I'm not going to quarrel during lent during Lent and it's like, well, you just said you wanted to do it.
So it's like people put these things out where they want to do this stuff, and Calvin Robinson did the same thing, and then when you say all right, let's do it, then suddenly they dash it. Whatever. She didn't do this, but that Calvin Robinson did it was oh look how look out what a piece of shit this dude is. So it's like, I want to put myself out there. I want to say I'm ready to debate anybody. When people actually then say they want a debate. Look at this piece of shit. Look at him. Oh he
just wants attention. Dude, you're the one saying that you wanted this. What are you talking about. People on the internet are just insane, man, They just don't It's like and then everybody thinks I'm being mean. It's like, how am I being mean if I'm asking them to come have the discussion that they said they wanted, So now I just don't want it with you. That's what it is.
Like.
They want to have the discussion with a bunch of idiots. They don't want to have that with you. I feel like I feel like I'm turning into Quentin. They don't want to have that with me. Okay, I'm turning into freaking Quentin Tarantino. Okay, like we're gonna We're not gonna have that discussion because I'm gonna shut your butt down. Okay, you want to have discussion, but now with me, Okay, now with me, right, and let's just be freaking honest
about that. Okay, I'm turning into Tarantino. Jamie, welcome back. Could you make me an espresso ex tanglia ten dollars? Smash the leg button Wi Fi Gospel. We already read that. Excuse me. I'm trying to make sure I didn't miss the super shit. I feel like I did. We got that, We got that, We got that, got that. Okay, we get more over here on YouTube, Thoughlet's say Joshua Strove into twenty Jay. I want to find an Orthodox church. There's a few in my area. What do I need
to look for? Should I be aware of a humanism? Yeah, I mean I think that's the big you know, if he's if the priest seems you know, skittlesy or whatever, just go to the other one. But I always tell people don't worry about jurisdictions if you're new to Orthodoxy, because it's not really a thing you have to worry
that much about. Like, if you're new, what you want to do is check all the churches in your area and find the one that's the best fit for you based on the priest and the people there, because that's going to be your family. So don't worry about internet drama or whatever unless it's something like really you know big, like I would stay away from LP to forests. He's a notorious you know, marches with BLM people. I mean, he's bad news. But don't worry about jurisdictions. Jason T.
Five bucks, Thank you so much. Theology explore two dollars Hollywood requesting is from a reform background. Okay, I'll pull him up if he's still there. Hey, Jamie, could you make me an espresso? Thank you appreciate it. What's up man? You know I'm mute? Do you turn your mic on?
I think.
Hollywood? What's up date? Leo? Leo DiCaprio, Thomas b How are bishops that allow contraception or chrismate those who aren't triple and is to be reviewed? Hey?
Yeah, sorry, So I have a question. I don't know if it's properate to stream.
Or not, but I was basically asking, so, with the transcendental.
Argument, how did you make the jump from that?
I have a stream on still, how did you get a jump from that to Christianity in the Bible?
Because the argument is an argument for an entire worldview that includes a lot of metaphysical beliefs and ethical beliefs, And the argument is that the Christian worldview also provides the toolkit and the grounding for those metaphysical beliefs and ethical beliefs.
Okay, yeah, this is a question.
Really, I was going to debate something else, but.
What's the other? So I'll get out? Thanks, what's the other topic? You want?
But to that? No?
He left?
Okay, t K breaks five solas? Where's that guy? Is that that guy that's posting the trail of blood stupid stuff on the on Twitter. Oh my gosh, I've been asking that guy to come to Baate for months. Where's he at? Come on, dude, where are you at? Here's the here calling right here?
Man?
Is he five solas or five the chad solas? I forget this guy's name. It's like, t K, what's up?
Man?
I'm mute?
Hey, what's up?
Can you hear me?
Yes?
Sir?
Hey, how's it going?
What's on your mind?
I'm new to the channel. I just tuned in.
I saw the tag protestansm Protestantism is false, prove me wrong?
So and then I heard you say something about your being like orthodox.
Yeah, so.
Do you think that Orthodoxy is like the one true Church?
Yes?
Okay, yeah.
Scripture would argue that I don't need to argue that, because Scripture argues that for me. Jesus himself says that he's against sectarianism, and I can tell you the verses.
Two, right, But this is prior to that, because I would argue that the Orthodox Church is who put that Bible together. So the reason that he's against sectarianism is because he set up a College of Apostles who have successors who are his church. So anyone who's not the Orthodox Church is the sectarians that you're talking about.
Yeah, I'm sure you've had this argument before, but what you just said is like self defeating because you just said that if they were the ones that set up the Bible, and in what is in the Bible is the most true, which I believe it to be the most true, then sectarianism is against Jesus' will?
Correct, right? I agree?
Yeah, yeah, So I don't know why you're like trying to be divisive.
Well, I'm not being divisive because I'm calling people to the unity of the same church that existed in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth centuries. So we believe the same as those people. That's the identical beliefs in church that we have today. So that shows that whatever Protestant sect you're in is the actual sectarianism.
I never said I was in one. In what a Protestant sect?
Okay, what are you in?
I just follow the Bible?
Wells that doesn't exist. That's even worse, because that's worse than a sectarian church that's you alone, that doesn't exist.
It does exist.
There's Bible, there's Bible churches. You can be a follower of Christ and not belong to specific sect.
Jesus Jesus established. Jesus established a church, and that church. If you look at Paul's epistles first and second, Timothy is based around. In that case at Ephesus, the person that Paul laid his hands on, who is Timothy. And then Paul tells Timothy, don't pass on this apostolic deposit without laying hands on somebody who you know is approved, because it gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. That's
apostolic succession. It mirrors the example in numbers eleven where Moses lays hands on the elders to give them authority and the spirit that Moses had, so the Holy Spirit goes from Moses to the seventy elders. That parallels the apostolic succession of the New Testament, particularly enacts one where you have a replacement for Judas, and it says that
replaced his office or episcopate. That's episcopal church government. And that's why when I'm when I'm telling you, if you look at the church in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth seventh centuries. They don't teach evangelical do it yourself Bible church stuff. They believe in what the Orthodox Church teaches. So you're the sectarian.
I don't believe so, because it's very clear in the even in the Apostles Creeds says they believe in the One.
Catholic Church. What what do you think Catholic means?
So we don't follow the Apostles creed? That's pseudonymous, that's a Western creed. You're talking about the nice you constant apolican Constantapolitan creed. It says one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That's the four marks? Does your strip mall Bible Church? The foremarts?
But you didn't answer my question.
I said, one Holy Catholic Episolic, the four Marks, that's what's necessary for the church.
No, I asked you, what is Catholic mean?
Fullness of truth? According to the fathers who Yes, it does, according to the fathers who composed that. That's what they interpret it.
To me.
No, it means universal.
It means in the Orthodox Church, not just universality in terms of numbers. Because Roman Catholics make this argument that it means numbers in terms of universality. That's why I'm qualifying it with fullness of truth. That's what it means in the Orthodox Church. So it can't be numbers. Let me give an example why in the fourth century the majority of the church was aryan or semi arian. So you can't identify it with a large number of people the fullness.
You're conflating like a heresy with Yeah.
No, I'm not. I know this subject matter very well. I'm not conflating anything. I'm telling you.
Because you've had these debates.
Over and no, I've studied this for twenty plus years. It's not just abase.
What you're having is willful ignorance, like you're choosing to disregard when people have told you in the past that Catholic means universal.
No, I know what the word itself means. I'm giving you the Orthodox explanation that it's not just a universality sense of numbers. I'm giving you a deeper sense that the Orthodox theological tradition gives it. I know that I know what universality is. I learned this stuff twenty five years ago. Dude, yea, yeah, yeah, So why are you mocking me because of Your condescension and condescending attitude is getting on my nerves.
I'm not being condescend you are.
You're talking about that people have told me this in the past, and I wasn't rebuked properly and I didn't listen to them. What are you even talking about.
I'm not rebuking you.
You said people in the past told me this, and I'm being arrogant and I need to be rebuked. That's what you're saying. Not being passive aggressive. Come on, get to your point. What's your argument.
I'm not being passive aggressive either.
One Holy Catholic Apostolic does not mean stripball Bible church like you believe.
Okay, that's that's just rude.
Okay, it's rude. Fun, It doesn't matter. What's your argument.
See, what you're doing is condescending.
Stop doing the two quote now you want to do it. Stop telling policing. Get to the argument.
This is so.
Like you said, you belong to your own thing at a Bible church. That's what strip mall Bible churches are.
Yeah, that's that's like super condescending.
So you know, I feel like, well, you're making bad arguments because you started out wanting to argue that they stop interrupting.
Is the Bible making bad arguments? Because I already told you that it's the Bible that No, it's not.
You don't know. How do you have the right How do you know you have the right Bible?
How do you know you have the right Bible?
I can look to the Orthodox I can look to the Orthodox tradition and the canons of the Apostles that we pulled up earlier.
Mm hmmm. And so they tell you it's like the King James or something.
The King James, the Church Fathers. No, the canons of the appoll muscles are like the three hundreds. That's not going to be the King James. Goofas I know.
I was choking.
No, no, you didn't know what we're talking about. I'm talking about Apostolic Canon eighty five.
You know what that is? The Apostolic Canon eighty five?
No, I don't know, right, So you are joking, you have no idea?
I was joking about the King James thing.
Okay, how do you know that you have the right Protestant Bible?
Okay, how do you know that I'm a Protestant.
That's a too My gosh, this is too stupid. We're done.
Bye.
That was the dumbest guy I've ever talked to. Nick. Nick. Yeah, let's all Jay. Yeah, my bad. I don't know what happened earlier.
Because I got booted out as soon as I answered I asked my question.
But all right, can I want to go? I want to ask the.
Question real quick, okay, and make it quick. Come on, yeah, go real quick.
I know I started as a Protestant, and I'm looking into the Orthodox Faith because I finally looked into early Church history.
And saw my beliefs like fold before my eyes. So I'm in shocked right now.
But I kind of want to ask, real quick, if you can start all over in your journey and and learn Orthodox faith.
But what would you do from the very beginning. You don't have to go on like a long like like right away read the Early Church.
Father'll take my time and not rush into it. Start by reading Athanacious. Start by reading