Well, just like the tech issues that we recently had where our entire systems shorted. Sorry about that. Sometimes confusion comes into our lives. We often don't understand the reason why we live. We don't as to the purpose of our existence, and we're trying to find out exactly what it is we're supposed to be doing here. Now, many Americans have decided that, you know, the way that we find out who God is and what our purpose is
is through Christianity. But when you approach Christianity, it's not as simple as you think. Sometimes you look around you as Protestants, there's in there, there's Evangelicals, there's the mainline denominations. Then you go out and then there's Orthodox, there's Catholic. But if you notice today with the gay flags in front of churches and the pastrixes, the female pastors, and the weird ideology, a lot of young people are finding out that the modern church perhaps may not be the
best version of Christ's Holy Church. In fact, maybe just maybe the people of the past knew a little more than we did. When looking back in history myself, I found there's two churches. There's the Catholic Church, we'll call it in General and the Orthodox Church. They both claim to be the true church. One follows the papacy, it looks like the other one doesn't. And yet at the same time, when you ask either of them, really, where
should I go to church? They'll say, well, most of them you should go to Catholic, but you know you can go to Orthodox if it has an Orthodox to say you can, but Catholic, but you should go to Orthodox.
So why do we have both? Then? Which one is true?
Which one is the way to be a part of Christ's eternal body, to be a part of the living, breathing unit of Christ. Joining me today to discuss the true Church, whether it's Orthodox or Catholicism. We are talking to experts in their field. Jaydyer. He's a podcast host, author of many books, an avid reader. Jay Dyer, welcome back to the show. Let us know who you are. For those that are just joining for the first time.
You want to explain a little bit about what it means to be an Orthodox or what that even you know defines itself as in a little bit about where people can find your podcast.
Yeah, Jay Dyer, I have been Orthodox since about twenty seventeen, and prior to that was Roman Catholic from many years, pretty dedicated Latin mass go or was raised Protestant in the Reformed Baptist and Reform tradition. And yeah, I would say that what Orthodox Christianity is is we believe it is the Church of the first millennium, still preserved and still holding to those synodal traditions that are essentially found within any of the canonical Orthodox churches throughout the world.
So we think it is the church that Christ established. We think that it doesn't change. There might be political geopolitical issues that happened, but the fundamental constitution and beliefs of the Church do not change. And so we take truth to be the most important category over things like numbers and things like that. And me personally, you can find me at Jays Analysis dot com and a fourth hour host of the Alex Jones Show for the last five or six years, and I write for the Sam Hid Show.
Yeah, jack of all trades and also an incredible guy behind the scenes. He's the real deal, by the way. And joining me to represent Catholicism, we'll find out a lot about it. Timothy Gordon's also podcast host, pretty influential in this field and all around.
I'd say, you consider yourself a theologian. Correct? Awesome, you hear me? Yeah, there we go for a second. All right, I'm a tomistic philosopher, trained trained graduate philosophy, but but I taught theology for many, many years. And yeah, the Roman Catholic Church is the center piece of of what I do. Uh, physics, metaphysics, ethics, politics, That's what my podcast is on. Rules for Introgrades is the name, and I try to clarify. I try to clarify the issues
because the Catholic Church receives so much attention. There's so much mis and disinformation out there. A lot of it's genuinely confusing to people, and it's a big tent. We have orthodoxy that always has to be separated from the chaef of heterodoxy, and there's been some confusion. Some of it is legitimate confusion, and some of it is confusion that has been stoked by media and opponents of the church. But a lot of it's been legitimate in the last
sixty years. So I try to be a voice of clarity, a lay voice of clarity, and that's what I do on my podcast, The Rules for Introgrades. Timothy Gordon awesome.
We'll be talking a little bit about their podcast later on and the rules in just a few moments. My name's Elijah Schaeffer and it's approximately seven forty five pm Eastern time in the United States. We are usually live right now Monday, Wednesday, Friday at seven pm Eastern time. We usually don't have our production booth blow up in the middle of things. But if you want to know this, we can do what we should always do and we'll just blame the Jews. Now, I'm totally kid, that's not
what we're going to do. Thank you guys for joining me. Are going to be reading the super chats periodically throughout, so you send them in. I see Rachel Wilson's in there for twenty dollars saying to you guys, much love to Tim and Jay, much love to Alive for hosting.
America will become Orthodox, America will become holy? Will it? I go about that and so much more.
Here another episode of The Riff Live right now, Let's start the show.
Welcome back to the Rift. You can find us at riftv dot com.
New articles every single day on culture, politics, and religion. Also us a litt announcement for your joining us for the first time. This is a new network, it just launched a few weeks ago, and this is one of our shows, so we're hammering out some of the details. We have a couple of new shows launching, including Joel Webbin, who is a Protestant that is coming on and doing a new show for our network. We're very excited about that. Plus, Sarah Stock has a new channel. If you don't know,
it's Sarah Stock on YouTube. She's also launching a new program. And we also have a new White House show with the Gateway Pun and Jordan Conradson. We're launching on September fifteenth, So God is good. We got our security clearances for the White House and we're very happy to be here anyway. Joining us today are my guests Timothy Gordon and Jay Dyer.
They're both infamous, i should say, in their own right, and have both come on the show previously to discuss what it means to be Orthodox, what it means to be a Catholic, and so if you want to watch those episodes, you can go back. You can type in their names and you can find them. They're very, very very good, very developed individuals and thinkers. Let's go in and let's talk about what we're gonna be doing. So
we're gonna be mainly talk covering three topics today. One topic is going to be whether Christ did or did not establish a visible head of church. We're talking about apostolic succession in its own way, what really defines the church? You know, the Orthodox and Catholic disagree on that. Plus topic two, we're gonna be talking about the Holy Spirit does or does not hypostatically proceed from the Sun, So we're gonna kind of talk about the Trinity, talk about.
What's going on there.
This is a very interesting topic, especially for me background and Protestantism. And number three, we're talking about the Divine essence is or is not absolutely simple and for the affirmative position not composed of any parts or potencies. Now, in the middle of these topics will have a normal struct Sure, there will be an opening statement, there will be a rebuttal, there will be a cross examination and a closing.
It's a very formal debate.
So if you're not familiar with that style on this channel, we're trying it for the first time today. Because these are academics, they are not retarded like myself. But in the middle of these topics, we will have a little bit of a break, so these will be a little bit lengthy might want to take out notes, and we will also be asking a few other questions more relevant to the culture and topics and what their responses are as the Catholic and the Orthodox church. All right, Jay,
we'll start with you with your opening statement. Our topic number one that we are discussing whether Christ did or did not establish a visible head of church. We're talking I believe the correct phrase apostolic succession.
I know you guys believe in the I know you guys believe in in uh they believe in in the in the papacy, right, and you don't correct?
We agreed on divine divine simplicity or act as purists?
First? Okay, out here a right that I have.
I have the opposite on my on my, on my, Let's go to that. So you said, uh, we'll start with the we have as topic three, but we'll we'll go to that one second.
Or you have one second or third? Which one the visible head of church? It's all over here, so I just have this one. All right, let's go.
Let's go to topic we'll change topic three the topic one here. Let's all the divine essence is or is not absolutely simple. Go ahead your opening statement, right.
So, if I look at scholastic dictionaries from Roman Catholic texts, we see that for God or for philosopher, Scholastic philosophy in general, pure act is defined as simple for perfection without any imperfection. It is free from any potency in the strictest sense. It is therefore unqualified perfection of existence, without any passive or limited potency. And this is from
the dictionary Scholastic Philosophy. Aquitta says something very similar, and as does Etenial Sown the student rehive me the one of the premier tomas of the last century. In defining who God is, there is this beginning point that comes from Hellenic metaph physics. We would not, as Orthodox, necessarily agree with every you disagree with every usage of the
word your act. But what we would say is that when I look at that definition and I compare it to the teaching of say same Maximus the Confessor in his famous two inter chapters, he begins to work by saying that God is not in himself as in as far as it is possible for us to know any kind of first principle. Nor is he in an intermediate state, nor is he in an end, nor is he any other concept. For he is indefinite, immobile, and infinite, since he is
infinitely beyond any substance, any potentiality, and any actuality. So notice there he is not pure act in himself. He is not actuality in himself. He goes on to say in section four, God is not therefore a potentiality, nor is he a first principle, nor is he an actuality, nor.
Is he a first cause.
And he's citing from Aristoitilian categories and definitions.
There he goes on to say, though, that in another sense, we can.
Call God these things. And the reason for this is that for Orthodoxeology there's two very crucial key distinctions, or a name, the ways that we that we name God that are distinct. We name God first in terms of the intraternitarian life, or God in himself, and in that way we do not positively predicate of the divine essence.
So even though tim will agree with me that there is a via negativa, Orthodoxeology has a different conception of what apathetic theology is so when we speak of the divine essence, we do not speak of it as identical to anything much less identical to pure act, first act act.
As purists, et cetera.
The divine essence is unknowable, imparticipable, unapproachable, and it is therefore, strictly speaking apathetic.
How do we know God? Then?
If God is apapatic in this sense, well he's not only essence. God is also person and the Saint John Damascus says multiple times in on the Orthodox Faith, the key to all heresies is to confuse the distinction between nature and person. The Orthodox Church, that distinction is as quote real or as strong as the distinction between the
persons themselves. So while in Tim's philosophy he would agree agree that the Father and the Son are really distinct, that real distinction is somehow not applicable to anything else in the triad, be it God's attributes, operations, or the distinction between nature and person itself, which is conceived of as only mental or volitional intmistic philosophy. And I would argue that in Roman Catholic theology that holds as well, because the fourth latter in council accepts the Peter Lombard
definition of what simplicity is known as identity thesis. This is denzing or four thirty two that person and essence are essentially identical, but they're only mentally or rationally distinct. Thus God is his essence. So notice for them, God is first and foremost essence. But the Orthodox position is very different. And Maximus goes on to describe the way that we do speak of God in positive catavatic categories, and that is because the energies are positive and known
to us. Those energies are his operations.
Where does this come from?
Is this something that the medieval Byzantines made up? They just came up with this idea that energies are these things that God has that are other than him, and they are these other deities, these polytheistic parts of God. Absolutely not. In fact, we would argue that the only way to have divine simplicity consistently is to adhere to the divine simplicity of God. Yes, but also that his operations are really there and really different from him. How
do I know that? The Coppadition's made a plastic analogy for how this is the case by looking at the difference between a man is nature and the work of nature and the product of nature. Allow me to quote Saint John Damascus briefly here for that specific distinction. John Damascus says that observe that energy, capacity of energy, and product of energy and the agent of the energy are
all different. Or the Orthodox Church we call these things the difference between nature, person will, essence and operation or energy and the effect of that energy. Energy is the efficient and essential activity of the nature. So notice that's the first statement from John Damascus. The same statement is made by Saint Gregory. Excuse me, Saint Maximus in his at the Lassios sixty three he says that God's supernatural energy is the identical energy that the Father of the
Son and the Spirit possess. That also the saints are deified by Saint Gregora Nissa says, and against Unumias two, the common nature is identified by common energy. Saint Grege Nissa says again, the essential invisible God becomes visible by his energies. He is not visible in his essence, but in some of his operations, And to quote Saint Cyril of Alexandria, things with the same energy are acknowledged to
be of the same essence. So energy proceeds from essence and is the proper signifier in work or operation of that nature or essence. Now, natures don't operate. Eight persons with nature's operate. And this is why for John Damascus in Book three, section fifteen, there are two wills, two energies, but one divine hypostasis working in and through those two wills, and those two energies now to shift out of the
philosophical definitions and statements that we have. And I would add that definition, by the way, is accepted at the six Ecumenical Council, where the Confession of Saint Sophronius, pulling from the explicit teachings of Saint Maximus the Confessor on essence and energy, two wills, two operations, and by the way, many energies, to cite John Damascus in book one, that is accepted at the six Ecumenical Council as the teaching's
crystological definition. Again it's called the Confession of Saint Sophronius. You can find the Oxford text available on Amazon. Thus, even in the patristic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, three minutes from the early few centuries achieved from the
early seventh centuries. In six eighty six to Me sixt eighty one, at the six Secumenical Council, we have the affirmation of the teaching of Saint Sophronius and Saint Maximus that John of Damascus encapsulates in his later text of on the Orthodox Face, reflecting on the essence synergy sanction, which is seen most clearly in Believe it or not, not triadic speculations, but in Christology. In other words, it is the uncreated energies that Saint Ceerl says, deify us in this life through feeding.
On the flesh.
I'm going to be interested to hear how a person who believes in the real presence, that is the body bloatsole in divinity, president of Christ in the Eucharist, as the Roe Mecallity Church claims to confess how this is possible given that in the Orthodox conception, it's only possible given that the uncreated energies, as Saint Ceerl says in the two Letters to exth Census, deify the flesh and thus make it the thing that we participate in to
be deified. He says in the two Letters to Sixtensus and this is reflected and then teaching the Council of Ephesis, by the way in the anathemas, that we do not eat the flesh and blood of some man, but the deified flesh of the God Man, made divine, not by the divine essence, but by his uncreated energy and immortality.
So Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
The fourth act, the third Actumenical Council of Ephesis is pretty explicit when we get into the actual teachings of how we participate in divine life. On the other hand, in the Roman Catholic Church, if I read from the teaching of Ludwig ott Louis, God says that them the grace that we receive in the Roman Catholic Church and theirs and their and their belief sanctifying grace is a created,
supernatural gift, really distinct from God. In other words, the very thing that you are participating in, which by the way, point number one says is a creation. Point number five says, is a participation in the divine nature. I'm pretty sure the divine nature isn't a creature. So I don't know how we participate in God. If the thing that we're participating in is a quote quote created gift really different
from God again quotes from a famous Roman Catholic agmatic manual. Lastly, I would say that there are a couple more examples that I think are very difficult for people who deny this distinction, particularly when it comes to what are called Theophanes. The often these are manifestations of God in the Old Testament. I'll give you a few that I think are really problematic. How much time to have one? You can have it, you can have. Got a couple more.
I got a couple more examples, and then I'll be done. So. In number twelve we read that the Lord said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, come you three to the tabernacle of meeting. And they came out. The Lord came down in the pillar and in the cloud, and he stood in the door of the tabernacle and called out to Aaron and Miriam.
Now noticed that we have this day authentic manifestation in the Old Testament where God comes down and specifically said to stand there. When we go back to the situation in Genesis. In Genesis thirty one, we read that the Angel of the Lord, who identifies himself as the I am the God who appeared to you at Bethel is there talking to Jacob. And that same I Am that appears in time and space is also talking to Jacob and calls himself the form of God. This is out
of the subtuision text. The form of God was seen by Jacob. And then we have another statement that it is the Im that he wrestles with, because Jesus at the end of John one says that he is.
The gate the doorway.
To have the ladder of Jacob and the angels descending and descending on the Son of Man signifies and shows that he was the one wrestling with Jacob. Jacob wrestled with an actual form or being in time and space that manifested in an energetic manifestation, as the Church has
always taught. But after Tomism and after the Middle Ages, the Roman Cacolic Church moved away from this and decided and said that these manifestations are rather created images, holograms, angels, et cetera, whatever imagery you want to use, they're not the uncreated energies of God in time and space. Why well, because of divine simplicity, it's not possible for God to be present in time and space in these ways, because
God would then undergo change. But I want to remind them as I close in this point, that this theoteny argument is actually the basis and the predication, the presupposition for the doctrine of the incarnation. It is not the divine Essence that became incarnate. It is this second person who, according to Philippians too willfully limited himself to step into time and space in a mode of being that the
Father and the Son did not enter into. So the reductionist act as purest position will undercut not just the ofphanies and the real manifestations of the glory of God in time and space.
The Leviticus nine says.
This is the glory of God that appeared God's glories under creature John seventeen. Thus this refutes the Roman Catholic simplicity position.
And just to clarify, so thank you for that.
Since you guys do have a bit of a rigid structure, do you prefer to do an opening statement and then do rebuttals after?
Do you want to rebuttle him and then do an opening statement, I'll do. I'll do opening statement. Okay, let's go ahead. And so representing the Catholic side.
If you're just joining the stream, shout out as well to in the chat crucible, Andrews said, it's a one hundred dollars super chat. We're not going to do weird sound effects for this, will keep it very very serious to the point. But it also said thank you Andrew for that. He said, Andrew Wilson here, thank you very much for hosting this. And Andrew's Orthodox correct, I think correct. So that's cool that you're tuning. I appreciated. I's all
your wife there too. So go ahead, Timothy your opening statement, you have a ten minutes, give or take. Since he took an extra two minutes, will give you two if you need it. You have twelve minutes on the clock.
Go ahead. Pure act is the basic expression of God's perfection, all powerfulness, his essayity. That means He's self subsisting, his necessity, his eternality, his simplicity. So God as pure act according to classical theism Western definitions of God, which has included broadly speaking, it's even included a lot of Orthodox thinkers Eastern thinkers over the last two thousand years. It is the most basic expression of who and what God is. So when you think pure act, because this is the
term of pure metaphysics, think pure being. By pure being we mean being without any becoming or potency mixed in. There are no non actualized potencies that are mixed in with the person of who God is now. Just so we are clear, Jay told me the last time we debated that mistaking a single aspect of God's reality means, in the context of Islam, worshiping a false God rather
than worshiping the true God. Arrently, I would say, I hope for all of our sakes, Jay's sakes here too, because he's a friend and he's a good guy, that this isn't true. Because mistaking God as being a composite of act with passive potency is the most fundamental mistake you can make as to who God is. Passive potency means something else can change you. And we have to talk about passive potency today. The fact that Jay has asserted on multiple occasions that something else can change God
through this term passive potency. So there's some basics of classical theism. One God cannot change. This is in Malachi three six. It's reflected in James one seventeen. God can't change. This is a basic pillar of classical theism. God cannot be affected by anything else. It's reflected in Acts seventeen twenty four to twenty five. Thirdly, God cannot fail to
be what he is. The principle of necessity only applies to him in this sense that he is utterly perfect, and he cannot be anything other than what he is. This is reflected in Matthew five, verse forty eight. Now, if God were not pure act, and by this we just mean pure being, there are so many equivocations that are going to be made here on terms I just mean pure being, Thomas, and the Aristotelian lexicon that he's working out of just means pure being with no becoming possible.
The basic definition between a creator and a creature is there's only one creator. He's got to be pure being itself outside the categories of time and space. Anything inside the categories of time and space has to be a mixture, a composite of act and potency, form and matter, substance and accidents. There are seven modes of composition, and anything inside the categories that was created by God has to be a creature who is a composite of these things.
But God has to be immutable, meaning he cannot change. He cannot change because he's outside the categories. He must be eternal. Nicia actually anathematizes anyone who says that he's anything other than the eternal, meaning there's no change in God, meaning God cannot exist prior to X and after X. That would that would earn one the anathematizations of Nicea. He can't be composite. And if if God were mixed in the way that Jay is saying, act with potency
in any manner, he would be composite. I mean there's a composer behind God, because one would have to be composed of their parts by some posterior principle, and that composer itself would be God, not God. So he has This is why he has to be simple. Passive potency means that that something else can change God. This always implies temporality, so God would not be perfect. This is a complete and total rejection of all classical theism. That
doesn't make it good or bad. I'm just stating it from the outset that that classical theism requires God to be pure act for him to even obtain all the properties that we're talking about. Now. What Jay will say is that God transcends logical category. If God truly transcended logical categories for one thing, this would require that we predicate being unifically, and for a Roman Catholic, we never predicate being unifically. We always predicate being analogically. So that's
not true. Because we predicate being analogically, we can actually talk about God in one way and one way only. That's what the analogy is. But if it were true that we predicated God unifically and and he transcends logical categories, then there would be no debates. We wouldn't be able to do what we're doing right now, wouldn't be able to identify God, name God. There'd be no dogma, no councils,
no scripture, anything that's important to Catholics or Orthodox. So there's an absolute equivocation on this idea of analogical versus unifical predication of being. Now that because there are so many different terms between the East and the West, I will say this, there is unintentional equivocation, meaning good faith equivocation between the Eastern thinkers and the Western thinkers on what pure act is and what it requires, but in some sense, in the sense of meaning being pure being
without becoming. We have affirmations of one sense or another of pure being by even Eastern thinkers like Gregory of Nissa, Maximus the Confessor, Athanaceous, John Damascene, even Gregory Palamus, though he puts forward a kind of alternative theory, the heartline distinction between God's essence and energies, and more recently scholars like doctor Bradshaw admits that God must be pure act.
Now I'll just run through a few of these, and against Eunomias two, we have Gregory of Nissa saying, except for the divine essence, nothing is uncreated, meaning the divine essence alone is uncreated. This is good because for God to be God, for there to be a real distinction outside of the Uziah of God would be to posit
a second God. Gregory of Nissa also says, and again he's operating on an Eastern equivocal definition, so I'm not saying that he means exactly what Thomas means, but he means the important part of it, that God is pure being, and that if he were any bit of potency passive potence, he would have to be inside the ten categories of existence. He says, the untouched and formless God is free from all composition and likewise the only begotten. So this proves
a couple important things at once. That because God is the untouched and formless God, free from all composition, that means any of the seven modes of composition, most importantly potency. Same thing with the Sun. That's Gregory of Nissa. Maximus the Confessor says God is the active and inexhaustible state of all actualization. The important aspect of what he's saying is that he is being. God is pure being, without becoming,
no becoming, mixed in, no potency. Maximus also says, for it is not natural to contemplate any change in God. Of course, this has been anathematized right at the beginning at Nicea to say that there's any change in God, in whom we cannot conceive of any movement whatsoever. So there can be no admixture of change in God. And again this is basically obvious to everyone. Uh Saint Athanasius says God is holy what he is, he means, no potency,
no division. I'm just demonstrating here that there are Eastern thinkers who are operating out of the basic existential fact of God as pure act Just think John of Damascus says God is uncreated, immutable, and not composed. So composing doesn't just mean act potency. It means any of the other six modes of UH possibly composing God. Now we can reduce this to a syllogism to prove it, since we're debating. After all, this comes out of Theologia one
nine one basic. First premise, whatever has passive potency can be changed or moved from potentiality to actuality by something else. By definition, this is what passive potency is. Second premise is God can't be changed because we all agree on that premise, and the conclusion is therefore God has no passive potency. It's important to note for logic nerds that this can be propositionalized. You can use symbolic logic to
prove that this is true. I won't go through the symbolic logic, but it's important that people know this ought to be sacricynct for any of us. Whatever has passive potency can be changed or moved by another. We don't agree that that can be done with God. Since God can't be changed it's been anathematized at NICEA. We have to say God has no passive potency, and Jay has said otherwise multiple times recently in the last year eight months.
So there's a simple way of explaining this to people the analogy of an automobile, since we're using all these terms composition, pure act, potency, whatnot. Composed of parts is how automobiles and all things operate. Think of your car, a drive shaft, the wheels, the windows, the chassis, whatever. They are dependent on an external assembler. A composite is ontologically posterior to its parts. If God had parts to you depend on a composer, a God behind the God.
This is not a mere logical category. This is a fact. This is an existential fact. It contradicts his assayeity, meaning he is self subsistent, and his necessity to say otherwise. Now, where you know, Jay, I think is equivocating or misunderstanding Tomism is on several of the terms. They're just real terminological differences that I think of good faith are eluding.
Now he will confuse platonism, neoplatonism, and aristotomism. These are three separate systems that disagree radically, and they have informed Christianity at different parts, But the Catholic Church is informed by aristotomism, which I said predicates being analogically, which goes right to the heart of what we're going to be debating with Palamus later. We don't use Platonism, which predicates
being unifically. I know the sounds absolutely insane, The terms are are bizarre, but it's really really important because for us to even be able to speak about God, we have to predicate being analogically. That means we have to be in aristotomist mode. Jay has said before he thinks that Aristotle and Thomas made being a genus. They explicitly reject this in Platonism. So the Tomistic predication is never nivical. Being is never a genus. This goes right to the
heart because of these equivocations. There are some basic terminological difficulties, confusions equivocations on that he makes on essence versus nature. These are very technical in matter, very much energies versus accidents, act versus operations, Like pure act doesn't mean God is
pure action. It means God is pure being. And this confuses the matter, and I think that might literally be all that we're debating at the end of the day, because God is pure being and even Eastern thinkers accept it. Passive versus active potency, and relations of opposition versus contrariety, all of these together mean that necessarily think Jay is intending to say that God is not pure being without any becoming. We have to get to the heart of the matter, all right, and at a time on that.
I'll be adding another minute here Clark for a rebuttal, because he went over a little bit there.
I was saying it.
You know, it's funny because I was I was trying to, you know, execute some things you were saying, and Groc went just as complex. He was like the onontological exigency of also the dogmatic corpus. I was like, wow, when you have two people here there speaking at a level of the ai' I'm asking the question. You know, this is a very complex debate has been going on for what, in many ways well over a thousand years right now
as we're talking. And that's kind of an interesting point is that, you know, people that are Protestant are not used to these complex, deep discussions.
And the things are like what do we want to do today.
In Protestantism, And sometimes it's like, let's all be gay pastors and everyone's like yay, and it's like okay.
But you know, people have.
Been thinking about some of these topics for for centuries, you know, even for a millennia if you look at the actual topic here and when we talk about what's important. I just want to remind you guys, if you're watching that, take notes and rewatch, rethink, re listen, and try to understand the complexity of their arguments. Also crucible. Andrew Wilson, for another one hundred dollars, said, and here's another. He
also yelled out, say my names. I don't know why, We'll just say your name Andrew Wilson in the chat. It's good to see you here. We're very happy to have you. He also sent another chat for one hundred dollars. He said, here's the last one. Take these guys out to dinner, Elijah and yourself love you all.
Yeah, and I would.
I don't know if you guys are free afterwards, but we'll check that out. If you're just joining for the first time, don't forget to like the video, don't forget to subscribe.
It's very important that you do.
And I want to jump into what I believe to be the most important part, which is give them a chance to respond to each other. Particularly before we do that. Though, just a reminder to check out one of our sponsors for today, redpill Threads dot com. They are a T shirt company, but they're not just T shirt company. They are a merch company that has shirts that actually align with our values. These are not just like mago ts.
When you check them out, you know, it's actually kind of crazy, Like they have you know, Hollywood on Fire, basically mocking Gavin Newso. And they also have you know, Disney T shirt, but the Disney Castle has a star of David or bath Mett what are you Gonna call? On top and it says propaganda instead of Disney. And so there's so many of the other T shirts they have. Plus they also have the Burger king guy with his
mouth opening a cartoon and a memes style. They have a I think they have like a monkey skull and it says something like fully developed or something I don't even know. And then they also have the commet Pingpong pizza T shirt the brands so it's basically provocative shirts of all the right wing memes and culture that we've created over the last you know, decade or so, since we've sort of emerged on a four chan and they
put it right on a T shirt. You get ten percent off today at Redpill threads dot com R E D P I L T h R A d s dot com. Use promo code rift for ten percent off.
Check it out, guys. It even just helps if you click the link of the description as we are a new network, a new channel, and if you want to know what Rift TV is just a shout out or the first mainstream network developing from funding from only Western people, only Western countries, and we are not being defined by any Zionism or any sort of outside influence that will try to destroy our core message, which is to save Western civilization. That starts now and here with what we're discussing,
especially with Christianity. Now, let's go over to Jay Dyer. I want to give you an example here. Jay is representing the Orthodox tradition in this discussion. You have six minutes on the clock. If you want to use, I'll give you a minute. You want to use the minute here? Do you want to use a minute on the cross examination of the clothing statement?
I can tell your minutes up, I'll go and use it here, because he touched on a lot of things.
Okay, cool, you have six minutes on the clock. Your time starts now, all.
Right, I'll work through this.
So the first thing that he said that was a basic theological mistake was that he identified God in the Divine Essence with asayity. Of course, all the three persons have a sayity or self existence or our auto theos in that system, if they're identical to the divine essence, except that he's not aware of Cappadocian theology, nor the theology of Constantinople, one which accepted unanimously with explicit decree the necessity to follow the Cappadocian dictum that the Father
is identified as autotheos. But to identify the Divine Essence as autothaos is actually to introduce the later Christological and Trinitarian heresy that the Calvinists introduced, that the Son and the Spirit are also this autotheos because they share the same divine essence.
So he's not aware of that.
That's a classic theological problem. Next, I didn't say that God changed. He's confusing the idea of what orthodox call reciprocity with the idea that God undergoes change. What we mean by that is that if you read the Book of Amos, for example, God says he's going to destroy Israel. Amos comes and praise and says the Lord, please don't do this, and God says, because you prayed, I'm not going to destroy Israel. That does not mean that God
can't excuse me that God undergoes change. It means that he is willingly condescended to engage in a creaturely reciprocity. That means that God is first and foremost a divine person, in particularly the person of the Father or the monarchea of the Father, which is a crucial Orthodox doction upon which all of this is built, whether it's the essence center, yourstinction, or these other distinctions. So, no, it is not the case that creatures cause it divine essence to change or
anything like that. In fact, I said that there's two ways that we can name God. I guess he didn't hear that, or he just wanted to do the quote mind from the Eastern Fathers, ignoring, by the way, all the places in those Eastern Fathers where they actually make the arguments against his position. For example, a specifically cited Maximus pointing out that the same energies that God possesses
are the same energies that deify the saints. He says in at the Lascios, which thus means that Trent is wrong when the Council, Trent says that we are justified in baptism by the righteousness, not that God has himself, but by the righteousness by which He.
Makes us just.
And again, to cite Nissa, again, common nature is identified by common energy. If you read on the Holy Spirit by Saint Basil, you'll notice that the way that Basil proves the Holy Spirit is fully divine with the Father and the Son is because he possesses the exact same energy or operation, because energy and operations signify nature. Now interesting in the scripture is when we read about the
gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the Book of Corinthians, when Paul talks about the spiritually gifts, he calls them the gifts of the inner gaya of the Spirit, the
energies of the Spirit. Tim could look at Strong's seventeen fifty three and he would see all the multiple uses throughout the New Testament, even places in the septuagen where inner gaia is used many times over, and that leads me to the other issue he doesn't seem to be well aware of in scholarship, which is if he could read Michael Renee Barnes's book Dunamis in Gregor Nissa, where there's this idea of the discussion of the power of God.
And this is the Cappadocian dictum to utilize first and second actuality to help explain how it's possible for God to create and yet to be perfect and to not undergo change. So to say that God possesses first and second act and that he doesn't always actualize all of his powers does not imply any imperfection and deity, and
rather it implies God has free will. If I was a Toast or a Roman Catholic, and I identified the act of creating with the divine essence as they do and with divine providence, then there's a necessary creation and a necessary providence, and a necessary world that occurs because those things are isomorphically identical. This is called the modal collapse argument. So that also refutes Tim's reductionist position. People can look at Radigalwitz's famous Oxford thesis on simplicity in
the Cappadocians. Moving on, he noted that as he went through his quote Mind of the Eastern Church Fathers, he
sort of tried to fit this into an aristotomist scheme. Well, if he was able to look into the scholarship on the Cappadocians, the transition from the Cappadocians into Cyril and Maximus and John Damascus in a very very recent, very well known text by yan Zach Kuber called the Rise of Christian Theology Naction Metaphysics, he would know that the Cappadocians were not working with a two tiered cause effect Aristotelian scheme. They're working more so with a neoplatonic scheme.
I'm not advocating for neoplatonism. I'm saying that when the neoplatonic philosophy is used by the Cabo Doocians, and thus that model and that tendency to speak that way is accept a particularly a Constantinople, one which by the way is called close and had out of communion with Rome,
which is the council that defines the Trinity. It has nothing to do with aristotomism, and so this is a kind of a revisionist anachronistic approach where they will take things and reread the tonistic positions into quote minds from the Church fathers. Because as I noted, as Gregor of Nissa says, the invisible God becomes visible by his energies. He is not seen or known in his essence, but in his operations. And that's from on the Beata Toudes
section four. So divine energies are what come down to us. It is not the mere created effects, but the actual participation in the attributes, energies and life of God. That's not a created thing. Jesus says in John seventeen, he came to give us a share in the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. Saus it is a real participation in uncreated glory. God's glory is not a creature. The glory and the grace itself is what we partake of. So he says that
I engage in unifical predication. I never made an argument that human terms or conceptions aren't unifical to the attributes.
In fact, I would agree with analogical predication.
It's just that the analogies do not match up to divine essence, they match up.
To the energies.
Hence Basil says in Letter two thirty four, what God's essence says, we do not know, but rather it is his energies, his operations that come down to us. Exactly what Innessa says Jay Dyer. That was the rebuttal.
Now, obviously you can both rebuttal his opening statement and his rebuttal here a few of his points. You are going to have five minutes on the clock. Please with the rebuttal, try to keep it within the direct timing. If we're in halftime, you have an extra thirty seconds. Bleed, Go ahead, Timothy in Strong's since Jay cited it. Energeia in Paul means God's activity and grace, not specifically, not a metaphysical part of God.
Distinct from his essence. This would this would repeat the entire position. The Catholic theology captures this through uncreated grace. That's our position, God himself at work in us and without it, does all of this without dividing him into essence versus energies. So it's sounded by that quote as
if it was essence energies, nothing of the sort. The Orthodox move from a biblical usage of energeia, which again I warned you there would be this equivocation time and time and time again, because entergaya is a word in the Greek that's frequent here to metaphysics, and ergay it means something very very different in the in the distinction between essence and energies. It's a strong extrapolation, in strong I think the most important question that Jay frequently asks sincerely,
I've heard him ask it sincerely many times. I'm not being facetious here is he'll ask, And this is really at the heart of the matter. Why if there's a real distinction between If Catholics allow a real distinction between the three persons, why can't they abide a real distinction between the divine essence and the energies? Which is a it's a fair question. The answer is usiological, which means when we're looking at the single essence of God, the
one thing which absolutely must be worshiped. This has been affirmed at I see it too. Worship is latria worship proper to the divine essence alone. We are talking about God's one uzia. Real distinctions within that Uzia can be made by what we've called relations of opposition between the three persons. That because in proper theology, the three persons
are inside that divine essence, that Uziah. This does not enable or rehabilitate or allow extra usiological distinctions between God's essence and energies, because the entire point of the essence energies distinction is that there is a real distinction, and they don't have what we call virtual distinctions anyway. There's a real distinction between God's Uziah and his energies, his operations that and they're uncreated, both whether you're talking philosophy
or classical theology. Anything that's uncreated is God. Anything that is on the other side of creation as God. So if you have an uzir that is the divine essence of God and something else that's uncreated you're talking about, you must be talking about two gods anyway. This is why we don't allow that distinction, any distinctions within the single divine essence. The relations of opposition between fatherhood and filiality, filiation,
these are fine. These make sense. Relations of opposition makes sense from within what we know to be the Trinity, within the uziah of God. The Father is not the Son, is not the Holy Spirit. But they're all the same substance of God. But you can't make you can't distinguish between two uncreated realities outside of space and time without
positing a new essence. So it's an usiological answer. It's very basic, and hopefully you see that the former is possible because monotheism requires one uzia of God, whereas the latter would require seemingly two divine uzias. They won't say it, they won't say that the position is too divine uzias because it's one divine essence and then something else uncreated. But it's required, it's necessarily follows incredible.
So you know, in the midst of this you actually are under time by forty five seconds?
Can I? So if you want to keep going, yeah, I would just say there's there's scriptural evidence against the essence energies distinction too. I'll jump into the Theophanes that Jay has been talking about in Exodus three one to six. At the burning bush, God himself speaks. It's not that God some energies of God speak. God himself speaks. It's a direct quote. But pillar of cloud and fire the Lord went before them, not a separate energy. Is a fact.
The Lord himself, the substance of God, went before them. So direct quote in Isaiah chapter six one to five. In the vision Isaiah saw the Lord did not see some likeness of the Lord. In John chapter twelve, verse forty one, this is applied to Christ. At the transfiguration, the apostles beheld Christ's glory participation. So this is important because when we're talking about the divine essence, we're talking
about the divine essence. When we're talking about some work of God, we're talking about something that's distinct.
Okay, So, Jay, I don't know if you were laughing at him or you're laughing in his argument, I showed you're chuckling a little bit over there, and I couldn't help but notice.
And so you know, as you.
Cross examine and you go into this, you'll have exactly five minutes to respond.
Here the clock starts.
Now go ahead, No but wait a minute, oh yes, stop hold on, so I can cross the exam and interrupt, right uh.
Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. I just I just wanted you to do a little bit, if you is that how you would like to that is that how you'd like to do that that section, like to what were you going to say? Oh? No, I was gonna say.
I didn't know if you wanted to go back over what he was just saying right now and then jump in there a little bit.
But uh, well, what we'd agreed to was cross exam where we can where I cross exam him and I can abrupt him correct yea.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally within reason. Yeah yeah, I mean yeah, exactly.
Potentially just gonna interrupt every five seconds.
Yeah, that's funny.
I'm glad that you mentioned Exodus three because it was actually next to my notes, because I don't know if you're familiar with Exdus twenty three, because God goes on to describe who that being is. You said, the substance of God went before them. Do you think that the substance of God is the angel messenger?
No, I think I think that God entered into I believe that the Theophanes represent a creation of God. Are they the substance of God or they represent they're not the substance of God. You said the substance of God went before them. Yeah, No, I didn't mean it that way.
Okay, But in Leviticus nine, it's said to be the glory of God that comes down.
It was an equivocation. Yeah, I'm just saying in God himself.
Yeah, so it's God himself for a representation, because that's a big deal.
We believe it's a representation. Okay.
In Leviticus nine, what comes down in that so often he is called the glory of God is God's glory of creature? Yes, God's glory is a creature. Yes, you're a polytheist.
No, you called the divice that glory is a creature because it's created. Yes, God's glorious creator, like I said, like I said at the beginning, well this is the Catholic position, and you know it's the laughing at it to pretend that this isn't a one thousand year old dispute.
Are you about what you're saying? God's glory is created? God's glory is? Is it eternal?
Yes?
So there's eternal. So you're a polytheist. God's glory is eternally created. And this is a game.
It's not a game.
Okay, this is why it's let me know poetry, let's do fifteen second blocks. It's not a game. No, it's you said that God's glory is eternal and it's a creature, that the angels are eternal, and no they're not. They're created.
No, they can be eternal with God like a footprint in sand, to use Augustin's term.
Yeah, yeah, are they created axt nilo? Well, of course, yeah, they're not eternal, they're not uncreated. But with regard to glory, it can't since it's uncreated. Since it is created. Which one is it? Since it's created?
Jay, No, it's not to God because I'm created, separate from the divine, as you to gods.
I don't believe that that the glory is a creature. You may you messed up by saying that you belielory is eternal. It's uncreated. It's the glory that.
Is it separate from the divine. Up to me, it's my time because i'm because I'm asking you back questions in my cross examination. All right, he's.
Correct on that, Yeah, sure, all right, Yeah, so let's let's leave the question.
Seventeen. Can I clarify my answer quickly if he allows you? Okay, so we say it's not polytheism because it's created. It's that simple. God's glory is a creature. God's glory is a creature.
Wow, you understand that in Ezekiel, the son is identified as the glory.
Is the son a creature? No, this is an equivocal definition, because yeah, woman is the glory of man. That doesn't mean that she's Uh. The unifical predication is the glory of the father. The son in this analogical sense can be the glory of the Father. That doesn't mean so when is that God's glory as such is uncreated? Okay?
And Judge's six it says that Yahweh turned his face to get in. Is that Yahweh really in time of space?
Or you don't know? Yeah, I'm not sure.
Well, maybe you should have looked into the theophanies if you wanted to talk. Well, you've already admitted that God's glory is a creature. Right, that's polytheism, an analogy. I mean, I never disagree with anal analogical predication.
But you no, No, I don't mean analogic. I mean when God turns his face. You think that a theophany means requires logical body? Did Jacob rustle with Jesus it's a theophany? Did he wrestle with Jesus. We say this is a created participation. So the son prior to the incarnation was created. No, this is what you said. It was a creature.
It's less than a So now you're a polytheist again, and there's multiple gods less than the creature.
I can't be a polytheist, Jay, if I keep saying that these are creations, I'm only a god. I separate from the divine essence you're calling that is God, and that they're called that means they're not creatures.
You always uncreated. His glory is uncreated because he had it forever in the triad in a triadic relationship. You said God's glory is a creature. You just messed up big time. That's idolatry.
That's I'm done all right six the time, And yeah, I was gonna add another thirty seconds out of the clock. Then anyways, you still have thirty seconds here for him interrupting you with the questions. So you have an additional minute on a future category if you'd like to, especially in the closing or on a separate topic.
We'll go ahead and we will switch Outay, hold on, I have more time or.
No, I'll give you an extra minute because of him interrupting the questions. You have thirty seconds left, and I'm give you additional thirty seconds onto either to the closing or on the section of the next topic. Let's go over to Timothy. Go ahead, you have five minutes on the clock. You can be in your questioning.
Okay. If the energies are not the divine essence, there's a real distinction between them, but they're still uncreated. How many such uncreated realities are there in God? Butzel says, there's infinite energies, So they're infinite uncreated existences. Are they essences of their own? Their energies? Hence they're not essences? Oh, so what are they? But they're uncreated?
So the operations, the attributes, and the thought, wills or ideas of God.
So they're infinite. There are uncreated things? Well, I'm asking you. Yeah, God is one in many. But except so when we go to worship God, we worship infinite things. Yes, God's infinite. I don't know if you know that. No, do you worship an infinite number of properties?
When we say God is infinite, infinity is an infinite number?
Can I worship the energies alone without worshiping the divine essence.
No, because every person who acts in the every every act of God is triadic and thus includes all of God.
But then, how are they really distinct because God does different things? What does that mean? Creating isn't walking on water? No, if I can't worship them separately, in other words, if there's not a passive potency in them that is receptive of my worship God's divine essence, his energies, I can't worship them separately. So why call them really distinct? Because if you guys had virtual distinctions the way you should hear, this wouldn't be a problem. But because you say it's
a real distinction in God, that's a problem. Modal collapse is why we don't. This is not modal collapse. Why I'm telling you why we don't have that? No? No, But but then they're not really distinct. You just said they're.
Distinct, because it can't be they are really distinct because the Father and the son are really distinct, and you don't have a problem with that.
I don't have a problem with that because that's all within one Uziah. Do you have a problem with constant standardizes are the operations from that one? You see, they might be the operations from but they're different from the uzia. Distinction applies to the substance. You're with me, right, So like when we make a distinction about a thing, we're
making a distinction about the substance itself. Philosophy one on one. Yeah, yeah, sure, okay, So that's what I That's why I asked, why can we call them really distinct when they're they're somehow outside the uzia. They're different from it. They're really distinct, they're not virtually distinct. But I mean, do you want to end? You want answer? I want your answer?
Right, Well, I'm going to say what they say because I agree with them. They say that just as a person works, he's not identical to the work, and persons do different works.
Okay, but that's a nonsense term. You can't say it's really distinct. That's fine. I'm just saying it doesn't work out because when something is distinct. No not, because when something is distinct usiologically, that means that we would have to act upon it. It would it would receive passive potency. Is that the persons, because they're the same. Do you think the persons aren't consubstantial they're really distinct? No, they're really distinct within an uzia. Oh, I don't believe that.
You don't believe the person of the trinity are within the same us. I don't start with the essence. I'll start with the fathers, the monarchical dark. Wait, you don't believe that the three persons are consubstantart. I'm not asking where you started. I asked, do you think that the persons are consubstantial? Yes? Or now? Of course they're consubstantial. Okay, I don't So they're not ziologically distinct. That's all I'm saying. I don't have your metaphysics. No, I don't have your metaphysics.
But the point is they can't be distinct if we're talking about two separate things. The persons are not too separate. The three persons are not too separate.
The relations of opposition the energy is a separate not Okay, they're not separate, is my if I work?
Is it separate? No? You screwed up there. No I didn't. You're just saying I screwed up the energy did I never said separate? Is it consubstantial or not? I said, the persons are consubstantially. Yes, the energies aren't consubstantial with the essence, though for very distinct Okay, but then I can't worship them separately. Then the same here's here's another one, that the essence is eternally unknowable. Do we fulfill our final end in the Beatific vision. We don't believe in
the Bitua vision because we believe in the purpose of life. Okay, when we look at you believe we see God in the end. We don't see God.
That's not our union, the uncreated energies, and we have a body. So I don't believe in a uh neoplatonic satiating of the intellect.
You're a platonist. I'm not a platonist on the Beato vision. No, you know it's from origin. Yes, So you don't believe that we can fulfill the purpose of life and see the divine essence ever?
Right, Nissa says, no one sees the divine essence ever, even in theton.
Even in the sketon.
Okay, I said, we see the divine energies, as the Cappadocians say, we see the things around God, not his essence.
What do you think the things around God are. If God has passive potency, explain to me how he can be immutable, eternal, perfect thirty second bleed.
Right now, divine essence is unchanging, unalterable. But I don't reduce the persons and their actions to the essence, and so it's not a problem for me. Yes, I answered, with reciprocity.
You're just saying there is a circular object, this planer that can be orthogonal. I mean, explain divine revelation then yeah, So if God can be I never I said that he condescends to have their identity with creatures. That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry you don't believe that prayer, right, God answers prayer? No, I believe acted upon which you've said several times in your podcast. I never said that passive potency. How could he still be immutable? The divine essence doesn't change.
God condescends to have reciprole relationships with our prayers.
That's what I said. That's time there.
I'm glad you don't think God answers prayers. So again you have a pagan metaphysical system.
All right, that's the time question.
Now, what I want to know from you guys in the chat right now if you heard the cross examination. One's in the chat if you think that Jay is cooking and that you think that he's winning right now in terms of just truth, and I don't want to hear just the Orthodox pros.
I know how you guys, are you guys will just be like jaywins.
So One's in the chat if you think theologically is arguments and more sound. Two in the chat if you think that Timothy's arguments and cross examination was more sound.
That means even if you're Orthodox or you're Catholic, you don't have to vote for your home team. One's in the chat for j Two's in the chats.
Before we do the closing statement, I do want to just read a couple of super chats here reminding you guys that Humphluru one said tim is based, Jay is based. We should be Catholic republic and the Authos should build the churches. We also had from Daniel Ward seventy nine said, thank you Tim Gordon for defending the one true Church that Jesus founded on the Prince of the Apostle, Saint Peter. May all least an Orthodox become Catholics, so we may
be in one holy Catholic and Apostolic church. We also read the ones here from Maximus Decimus said keep my name out of your mouth, little boy, shout out for our supreme leader, Jay Dyer, Christ is King. All right, we're gonna give a one more minute here to read a couple super chats before we get to the closing statements. Servant Necros is thirty three cent, huge respect for Jay.
Keep it up my brother now the Aldohyan and also said Tim makes you sleep in Elijah is using groc This is the most rigorous debate I have ever seen.
It's truth.
I don't use I don't use AI, but I had to use ad a lookup some of the stuff you were saying in real time. Also, we have missed a fist and said I'm too subtarted to understand any of this. But Orthodox have better hats, which settles it. A tree will be known by its fruit. Come home, Papists. So it looks like we got a pretty good split in
between there. Right, let's move into the closing statement. Just so you guys know watching at home, we will be taking a five minute break between each of our topics. So you can use the restroom, you can breathe, and it might be a couple of minutes, so don't go anywhere. We're gonna start with our closing statement. If you guys are John, are you prepared and are you prepared to go? All right, Jay, you're gonna have ten minutes on the clock.
You do have an extra minut would you want to use it here on a future topic?
We'll say that. Okay, soat we're doing closing statements for each topic. Well, that's the forumt that I was handed here, unless you like to do a closing statement overall. I thought we were doing overall. But what I defer to you if you want to do, that's your figure. That's gonna be really.
What about brief? Yeah, why we just want we'll just do a three minute wrap up because I think that's for a lot of us. Just a reminder, because this is an internet debate. While there are a lot of theologians, some people may have gotten lost in there. So maybe we'll keep to understanding to help us understand what your final statement was. You have three minutes on the clock. Will make it brief and we'll have a complete one at the end. Go ahead, Jay, your time starts now.
Yeah.
I want to remind everybody that again, I think if you are familiar with Biblical theology, the Patristic teaching, nobody believes that the glory of God is in any sense a creature or created. In fact, it is the uncreated immortality and light that Paul talks about at the end of Timothy, in which God eternally dwells that uncreated light in glory was manifested in Matthew seventeen on the mount of transfiguration through the human nature of Christ.
And so it is precisely this crucial.
Mistake that's made amongst the Catholic friends of ours that they think that this in some way will violate these basic metaphysical principles. But in fact we have a reverse system that we derive our theology first, in our metaphysics second.
This is what allowed the Church Fathers to be.
Pretty fluid with the way that they appropriated the philosophy of their day.
As the zach Kuber.
Book notes, the Church Fathers are able to in some places pull from Arisothean logic text, but for the most part they utilize a lot of neoplatonic argumentation. At least up until John Damascus, who then does use a lot more Aristotilian argumentation.
So what that shows is that for us, it's not.
A question of Aristotle versus Plato, but rather divine revelation,
as Father Fluorowsky says, which comes first and foremost. And that's why, for example, when Aquinas in on a de vertate, when he talks about the section on divine simplicity, when he rejects John Damascus's essence energy argument, which shows by the way that John Damascus is actually making the same essence energy arguments that I'm making, which is precisely why they were present in all the cab Dootionans, why I was present in Saint Cyril, and it's even present in St.
Anthonasius himself.
If you read Fluorowsky's essay on Creation and Creaturehood about the essenceentary distinction in sant Athenasius even you'll notice that Aquandas's rejection has nothing to do with what the actual Patristic teaching is. In fact, he says in on the contrary. Moreover, Rabbi my Minides notes that the names of God do not signify intentions added to the substance of God, because every accident signifies an intention added to the substance of
its subject. Therefore, the foregoing names do not signify an accident.
In God.
We simply don't have the two tiered metaphysical collapse structure that He has, which nobody in the first seven hundred years of the Patristic teaching has either.
So the attempt to categorize.
The energies as accidental or in some way hearts or something like that was never an argument that I made, nor did any of the Eastern trust Fathers make it.
And in fact, if you the dissutation with Piis which is the theology of Saint Maximus that goes into the Confession of Saint Sophronius, which is accepted at the six Ecumenical Council, that whole treatise, it's about one hundred pages, is a treatise utilizing all the same essence energy arguments that I make against the monothelite monophysite position that is accepted in the Confession of Saint Sophronius at the sixth Econminical Council, and even Pope Agatho in his letter admits
two wills and two energies in Christ and so when when Tim said that inner gaia means something very different in the Bible, it's not metaphysical. He then goes on to give this elaborate ussiological story about what it's all really meaning, doing the very opposite of what I'm doing, which is looking at the text when it says that Moses walked up on the mountain and God's glory was shown to him, his goodnesses, and by the way, it's
plural there the goodnesses of God are shown. And yet Jesus says in John five, no one saw the Father at any time. Well, it's not the energies that are manifesting in time and space. It is the person of the Son, who is the face of the Father in time and space, and.
It is his energies that are manifest sacing.
So he misunderstood, especially when he was talking about the Angel of the Lord, who is obviously the person of Christ in time and space in the Theophany. So I think that that Theophanees really clenches the whole argument.
All right, it was forty seconds over, but we'll give you the minute bleed. Go ahead.
I'm gonna put the same amount of time then that he had let me reset the clock. You'll have four minutes since he had four. Go ahead, Timothy, give us your closing statement on the topic.
Here on the simplicity, you see the devastation to the EO position when you look at scripture on the beatific vision. In First John, it says we shall see Him as he is. That would mean the divine essence at the end of time. Blessed are the pure in heart. Or they shall see God. This is Matthew chapter five, verse eight. They shall see God, not the works of God or the energeias of God. They will not see his energies. They will see God himself. This is the problem. This
is the teleology of the good life. This is what we're promised. And they say otherwise, they say we will never see God in his essence. All we can ever see are the energaias of God's same as what we see on earth. It's absurd. If we never see God's essence, we never reach full union with him. Also, so this is really really important to draw. It's it's absolutely theologically and teleologically devastating, and it's a fatalistic worldview. Very very important. Now, Glory.
When Jay was asking me about glory, and he's spit firing questions at me. Glory is a created reality. The way we experience it, the way we're talking about it, the way it's predicated. Analogically, it's glory in our soul, in our intellects, and our participation in it is created and therefore the way we interact with God's glory. Again, this is a virtual distinction because it involves the way that we receive it in interact with it in the mode of the receiver us creatures. It's of course has
to be created. A created glory has to interact with creatures as it exists in God, it is uncreated. But we don't know glory from the side of God because glory from the side of God remains uncreated until the be a typic vision. The most important thing he was asking about the Theophanes and Jay's claim. He'll say, the Theophanes are this easy, easy proof that passive potency can
exist in God, which is a non sequitur. It's absurd, says there's a distinction between the inner, unrevealed aspect of God, his essence, and what he reveals and manifests us his divine personal energies. A Theophany. Like I said before, it's a it's a created sign or instrument of uncreated presence. The change is in the medium, not in God himself. So this does not even begin to prove that God
is not pure actor, that God can change. Particularly, I thought Jay was going to come on this first segment and distinguish, well, God can change because he has active power, active potensia. Well that's true, but he's the unmoved mover. He can he can act on things without them being acted on him. But he he came on and defended God as passive potency. And this just doesn't begin to be shown by the fact that the Theophanes have taken place as signs and instruments that are created. Worship is
something funny. Worship belongs to the divine nature alone. This is from Second Constantinople. But not if we take Jay at his word, worship Second Constantinople belongs to the divine nature alone. So that that's really important, I mean the most. The heart of this issue is whether or not passive potencies can be allowed within God. And this would simply destroy all of classical theism. God would change, He wouldn't be immutable. He wouldn't be eternal. This is anathematized it,
and I see it. If God had passive potency, he wouldn't be simply wouldn't be perfect. I mean, I'm restating what I said in opening because it's so very basic and it's so devastating to what we believe about God. If we believe that God, if we were to allow ourselves to believe that God had passive post I still have a minute.
Yeah, if you want to want to have the minute on the clock right now, all right, give me one moment.
Let me reset the clock. Give you a minute and go ahead and take that.
Yeah, I just want to address in this minute the fact that I mean, he doesn't seem to be aware that the Theophanes are called God, they're given the name Yahweh, they're worshiped, and they're pre signifiers of the incarnation. So he's literally saying that these signs and symbols can be worshiped. So he believes that you can worship creatures. Then he turns around and contradicts himself because he says that only divine nature can be worshiped.
The triad is worshiped.
And it doesn't say only the divine nature is worshiped, but we worship God in Triad. That's the actual definition of the council doesn't say only divine nature. So I think it's just kind of insane to me that that, like how far removed from divine revelation that position actually is.
And again, as I said in.
Philippians too, if God is a being that is reducible to pure act, then it's not possible for the self emptying or the limiting to occur in the incarnation when the Sun, according to Filippians to in the Canosis passage willfully limits himself. A being that is pure act according to definition reducibly would undergo change via Philippians too, And we don't believe.
That can have a minitary respondent. No where you're you're over on that one.
You can't actually still in the other topics if you'd like to, you can always address technically if you like to take a little bit of time to bring back some points, I do want to mind you, guys, we're gonna take a break here in a second, so that if you're dis joining right now in the live stream, we are in the middle of debating some of the core dogmas theological concepts, depending on where you come from
and what wording you like to use. Of Orthodoxy and Catholicism in terms of the Church itself, not the Orthodoxy of religion, Orthodoxy of faith, or the Gospel, but of the approach and of the Church. That being said, if you guys are sending super chats, I just want to remind you guys a couple of things. We have a few more people in here. Mista also said that it's a little bit too much beyond him. We also have
some win Titus, win Hadrian. We also have a l chemist said, depending on Gordon's performance, tonight might be Jay's third conversion to Catholicism and second denunciation of the Orthodox Church.
Curious to know which way the wind swayed him tonight.
Uh, Sigilists said Orthodox equals divine person, Catholic equals divine robot. We also have a servant, said Hard passed on trusting a church founded on forgeries. I'm not sure that's in Australia, and shout out to my Aussies. I just got banned from Australia. Unfortunately, I don't even know what the currency AARs is, but uh, buddy, Pep nine seven three said tim has been forsake and everyone got to donate to the stream where y'all are Yukubians.
Really, we're all did you cube made us?
I remember you said that, right, Yeah, you're all creating the image of a cube.
You're learning the right religion now, yeah, finally yeah, And.
And a grand canon is a portal, that's what they say. Uh, Techno Ox said, let's go, not one step back.
There you go.
We also have a few more that we'll read in a moment, but let's join and let's jump into a quick break. We're taking a couple of minute break here, just a reset. They're gonna reset their books, their notes, and we're gonna come back just to make sure I have it correct by the from you so that we don't make them no mistake.
Again.
For the next topic that you wanted to cover, we are able to get into the Christ did not establish the papacy? Or did you want to go to the Holy Spirit? Does not have a do you want to go to the Holy Spirit?
Question? Was it Philly? What do you want? He went first? You can pick the next topic. We'll be going first. I'm fine with either, but but Philly oquay would be would have more of them.
All right, let's go there, all right, So we'll be back talking about that just a moment, and we'll be starting opening statements with Timothy Gordon representing Catholicism. We'll see just a few moments, take a break, and we'll be right back in the Rumble section. That justays imagine Allied to trying to process all this when he couldn't even get the sound started to start his live stream.
Absolutely fantastic.
We got a great debate going on today directly between Jay Dyer and Timothy Gordon. If you're just joining Live today, we are live on rumble x, Facebook and on YouTube. We can also find us on Instagram and Elijah Schaeffer dot locals dot com makes it if you want to know where we've been.
I've been very sick.
I was in El Salvador shooting content and then I end up picking up a stomach bug from a taco stand. I love the country, but don't eat pork from strangers in developing countries.
That's just a little a little tip for tat there.
We're gonna be jumping into our next topic today on the overarching discussion of orthodox is in the Church itself
and Catholicism as in the church and the dogma. If you're joining me today on YouTube, make sure that you like the video right now and subscribe to We are a brand news show, still working out the kinks, just a couple months old, and absolutely fantastic and excited because we are a network riftv dot com not influenced by outside countries like Israel, and that's our claim to fame here and so we really appreciate that.
All right, We're gonna jump into the topic here, specifically about the Holy Spirit, and you know, we are asking ourselves, does it or does it not hyposthetically proceed from the sun. So this is a very complex topic.
It's going to get intricate, it is going to get absolutely incredibly in many ways incredibly technical, and so again I encourage you guys to please have your your notes out and be ready to discuss. Our guests are of agreed to doing ten minute opening statements and they will have a minute bleed if they so choose. We're going to start with Timothy Gordon. The time is on the clock. You have ten minutes. You can start now.
So the second question tonight is nothing less than the unity of the Trinity. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son together is one eternal source. This is called the philioquay. It means and the Son. The Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the person of the Father
through the person of the Son. Brief historical note, there's a semantic dodge that happens with Orthodox The narrative proves how absurdly reactive the Orthodox position is against the Catholic position. Or early on, there are a couple of thinkers. One
is named Photius. The other is Michael Ceriularius, who was the patriarch during the Schism, who mistakenly thought that the Catholic philioque meant a polyarchic generation of the divine essence, meaning that both the Father and the Son like generate the essence as it comes to the Spirit, which has never been the Catholic position. It's the Catholic position has always been monarchic. The Father alone generates it through the
Son it comes to the Holy Spirit. So so together these thinkers, who are separated by about two hundred and fifty years, Photius and Cerularius together reduced the Orthodox position to the view for for a time that the Spirit
proceeded from the Sun only economically or temporarily. By the time they realized their error in interpretation in the late thirteenth century, the Eastern Orthodox, they're already committed to schism, and so even though they became willing to admit that the Spirit proceeded from the Sun eternally and this is an eternal relationship, they maintained some linguistic distance from the
Catholic position, which is called hypostatic procession. It means a procession from the person by use of nonsensical language like eternal manifestation, which is either a distinction without a difference from the Roman Catholic view and we're the same all along, or else it's nonsensical here. I'm on this one topic of three. I'm very willing to be persuaded, but it seems just like a semantic dodge. They don't want to
have the Catholic view. By the time the Eastern Orthodox realized that, Photius in around eight hundred and Ceriularius around two hundred and fifty years later, badly misunderstood the philioque and created this whole stink they decide. It seems they decided to employ the semantic dodge rather than admit the air of these two thinkers. So it depends what's being said. If the Father alone truly spirates, truly spirates the Spirit,
then it becomes nonsensical. It would deny that all the Father has belongs to the Son, which is a quote directly from scripture. From John's Gospel, it severs the eternal relation of the Spirit to the Son, which again Jesus says, all that the Father has I have. In this sense, Scripture strongly supports philioka, which is, the Father gives the divine essence to the Holy Spirit through the Son. The spirit is called the spirit of the Son in Galatians
chapter four, verse six. In Romans chapter eight, verse nine, Christ breathes the spirit. In John chapter twenty, verse twenty two, this is an image of external procession. I think they'll say it's strictly economic. But he's breathing the spirit, and it's an eternal relation. When Jesus says all that the Father has is mine. John chapter sixteen, verse fifteen, nothing
is excluded from the sun the river of life. In the final Book of the Bible Revelation twenty two, verse one, the river of life flows from the throne of the Father and the Lamb. This has only one possible meaning that I can construe most condemningly, and there is a lot of equivocal language here. And again I think there's the least difference between our two positions of all these
three topics by far. I would say that the Eastern Orthodox thinkers, or Eastern thinkers of the first millennium, many of them largely support it. Cyril of Alexandria says spirit is from God in the Sun and through the Son. That's an Eastern thinker. Saint Maximus the Confessor says, outright, the Latins are correct. They mean from the Father through the Son. Saint Basil and Gregory of Nissa both say almost identically, all God's works are from the Father through
the Son in the spirit. Saint John Damascene gives an amazing image for all of it, for anybody out there that's trying to think about it. This is an amazing image and it captures both the medium and the substance of the way that I believe the philioque works. He says, the Father is the source the Sun is a river,
the Holy Spirit is a lake. The spirit quote proceeds from the Father and rests in the Sun. Saint Gregory of Nissa writes, every operation which extend from God to creation has its origin from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. This is very very close, very close to our view. None of these views, because of the abstrusity of the topic, are going to be identical, particularly in the Early Church, but it's very
close to what we're saying. A hypostatic procession, a procession of the Father through the person of the Son to the Spirit. But still only the Spirit only gets the divine essence from one source. That source is the Father alone through through Jesus. As a reminder, Avenatia says, the Holy Spirit has to the Son the same proper relation as we have known the Son to have to the Father. So a nice relation of proportion. The Holy Spirit is to the Son as the Son is to the Father.
Gregory and Azienzas said, if there ever was a time that the Father was not the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Sun was not, then the Holy Spirit was not showing eternality through temporality, and Saint Epiphanius of Salamus says, the Spirit is from the Father indeed, but he is not without the Son. For if the spirit is of the Father, he is also of the Son. For the Son says he will receive from me. Ecumenical councils support this. It was not
crystal clear until the fourth latter in council. The Spirit receives equally from both leons two, which takes place supposed to be the Reunion Council, the first Reunion Council in twelve seventy four, from the Father and the Son, as from one principle one spiration. There's equivocation on whether or not there's one principle at times there's just one principle, one spiration through the Son. Florence in fourteen thirty nine,
which actually was the Reunion Council. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church did unify at the Florence Council, where the Orthodox position thirty one the thirty three delegates said, you are right on phillyoquay and on the papacy says spirit eternally from both one principal one spiration. Now scripturally, the spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son in John chapter fourteen, verse twenty six and in
John chapter sixteen, verse seven. Logically speaking, this holds if the son cannot spirate, he is less than the Father, which is a semi arianist error. Unity requires it as well. Phillioquay preserves the Trinity's unity, denying it divides the Father and the Son. So I'd say this that you have to take this historical look at the Phillyoquay one because it's so dense, but also because the historical account is
really really important. It seems that by the time the Orthodox real we weren't we Catholics did not the Latins didn't have the position on the filioqua that they were attributing to us. They did not want to admit that the position had being correct all along. So until this misunderstanding about what Western fathers meant began, the Eastern fathers were comfortable with eternal relations between the Spirit and the Sun. It's called the Athenation model, after all, and Athenacious is
an Eastern father. This is the Eastern formulation of the hypostatic procession, though they don't use the term hypostatic. In the sixth century, the formulation begins getting put into the Western, non Roman creeds, which makes the I guess East feel threatened. There's a lot of natural tension at the time. In eight oh three, Charlemagne enthusiastically adds it to the creed. Frankish priests at the time say the creed this way
in the Holy Land. And then in eight sixty nine, this important date, Photius of Constantinople says the creed is heretical. He thinks that it means the Holy Spirit's essence in the Creed comes from two sources. This is just wrong. It's an embarrassment. He thought that the Catholic position was one of Polyarchia. And it's probably why we're disagreeing about this today is because there's an error mate and a misinterpretation of the Catholic position that's factual, with no account
ever given for it by Photius or his people. He thinks it means the Holy Spirit's essence in the creed comes from two sources. To repeat for people out there, for those whom this is new, Photius says, the spirit has no eternal relation with the Son, which is not I believe the Orthodox position today even only a historical temporal economic relation is what Photius was willing to say because he knew he didn't want that Catholic view. Fifty four,
Michael Cerularius revitalizes Photius is overreacting misunderstanding of the Philly. Okay, are we at time? You know we're at time? Okay, And I would say that this is a history of a misunderstanding without account ever taken.
All right, going over in the chat you know, remember you guys, at any point if you think someone's cooking, it's always one in the chat for ja two in the chat for ten. We're gonna go over to Jay Dier at the Orthodox position on the Philly. Okay, if I'm even pronouncing that right, iings to pronounce that differently, So sorry for that.
But go ahead and give us your opening statement. Yeah, thank you. Give you a second to set up your notes here, and do you wanna do you want to a couple of seconds here? Uh? No, I got it.
Okay, I'll start your timer whenever you're ready. Let me know when you're ready to begin or so.
The Orthodox doctrine is again going to flow out of the teaching of the Cappadocians, and particularly Constantinople one, which is the second Ecumenical Council. Keep that in mind, because second Ecamenical Council was called closed and confirmed outside.
Of communion with Rome.
At the time Saint Melidias of Antioch was the presiding bishop. He died outside of commune with Rome, and a few years later Rome eventually accepts that council as the dogmatic definition of the Church, supposedly. I want to before we get into this, well, I'll just start here. In the Orthodox view, following the Cappadocians, there's a famous dictim of Gregor Nazianzus.
Everything that the Father.
Has, the son has likewise accept the causality. You'll notice that nowhere in that discussion did you hear a clear discussion, a clear explanation of what the Father is as the sole archade. The Father is the principal fount, the source, and the unorigin at beginning point of the triad. Thus, his hyposthetic property in Orthodox theology is is precisely to
be picked out as cause. That's why, if you heard in the first part he made the huge mistake of calling the Divine Essence a say or autotheos or of himself or of itself. It is the Father alone, according to the Capitoian and constantin one teaching, that is God of himself.
Why because the Son and the Spirit have.
Their origin in the Father, in particularly the Father's essence. The Son and the Spirit thus do not possess and cannot possess, the Father's hypostatic property. And so Tim doesn't seem to be aware of what the Creed teaches. When the Creed says, I believe in one God, the Divine Essence, Oh no, it's actually one God, the Father. Tim appealed to monotheism, apparently not being aware of the fact that
the word monotheism is a sixteen hundreds term. Maybe he's not aware of the term that was used explicitly in the Creed and amongst all the Church fathers east and West for many years, and that is the monarchea in the Greek. The monarchia of the Father is the beginning point of Orthodox Trinitarian theology, particularly Exodus three fourteen, when God says, I am from fourteen fifteen, I am that I am as Saint Maximus, Saint Grey Palamas says he did not say I am essence.
He said I am as an I am he.
Thus, the Father is the beginning point of all Trinitarian theology, and contrary to Latin metaphysical essentialism, we don't begin our Trinitarian theology with the divine essence the Father's hypostatic property, since it's what picks him out as the one God, as the cause of the source the RK.
This is the cappadoc in one on one teaching.
Cannot be shared as the cappuditions noted, whatever is a hypostatic property is unique to and individuates that person. Whatever is not is common to all three. Otherwise there would be some form of subordinationism in the triad if there were to be a power and attribute a property that two persons have that one lacks. You'll notice when Tim gave his explanations, he explicitly affirmed the very thing that
Photius pointed out. He says, he's a red Photius. It doesn't sound like he's actually read it.
To me.
I think he's read some Roman Catholic websites that cite it. I've read it actually multiple times through us, so I know the Mystagaji very well. He actually talks about the manifestation of the spirit in the Mystagaji, which Tim says they don't talk about They missed this and had to make it up later. But wait a minute, Tim said, if one cannot spiate or if the he said that, if one of them does not spiate, they're less. Thus
the son has to be able to spirate. Tim, maybe you didn't realize that in the In the Mysticgogy, that's actually an argument that Photius makes that the spirit doesn't aspirate or generate.
So, by your own argumentation, if the son is not equal to the Father because he doesn't spirrate, then the spirit has to also spirrate.
But nobody teaches this. The spirit spir rates or generates a person. So by your own argument, you subordinated the spirit, which is the very argument this made in the Mystic God, which tells me that you didn't actually read the Mystagogy.
I'm going to quote you again. If one does not inspire it, then they're less. That's what you said. I hope the son does inspire at east less? Sorry?
Uhuh so the spirit does he do? No, he doesn't, does he? So by that same John's Gospel, he says, I have everything the Father has.
Yeah, except the causality as the Cappadotions and constantin Noble One teach. So quoting the scripture, you're quoting the Cappadocians. Uh scripture.
Oh wait a minute, So the concetpt Noble one is the dog of the Roman Kelly Church or not, because it says you have to follow the Cappadocian teaching all.
The Father is the sole cause, sole cause.
Now isn't it interesting that Roman Catholic scholars themselves have discussed, by the way, Basil talking about eternal manifestation in Edward Kishenski's famous book The Philioka, which is one of the more recent historical academic texts on that. Oh but wait a minute, did you know it turns out that Sishansky actually went from Unionism to Orthodoxy. Why is that, Well, he wrote this book about the philio Oka and he
realized that. Turns out Basil teaches eternal manifestation on page thirty nine, which oh you thought that was made up in the Middle Ages, even though it's in Saint Basil.
Oh, but it's also in the Mystagogy in book two. So you're acclaiming all.
Of these things about what the Orthodox position is and where it made all these mistakes. You don't have any knowledge or familiarity with constantinumble one. And it's mandate that you have to follow the capitotion. Teaching on the Father is the sole cause. And in fact you give to the son the very thing that picks out the Father, which thus creates a diad, as Photius.
Argued in the mystagogy originally.
Now to come back to this notion of the monarchia again, in John fifteen twenty six, Jesus illustrates our position when he says, when the helper comes, who I will send to you from the Father. That's Economia, the spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. Procession is explicitly said by Jesus to be from the Father. Now Tim likes to say, ah, but I can go to Romans, and I can go
to Galatians four, and I can find Economia. Passage is where Jesus sends the Holy Spirit or it's called the spirit of the Sun. And I can read that back into the eternal trinitarian relations. No, you cannot, And I'll give an example. In Isaiah forty eight, we're told that the Spirit sends the Son. Is that going to be read back into the eternal relations in Isaiah forty eight.
No, and this is a classic passage that Orthodox.
Church fathers have cited for centuries to show that you cannot arbitrarily say that the economic relations and passages can be read into the eternal triad. That's only it only takes one example to show why you can't do that. Thomas Aquinas said persons are relations or persona at relatio. No, a person is not a relation. A person is a subject. And this is precisely why his essentialist trinitarian theology goes wrong. You don't begin our trinitarian theology with the divine essence,
but rather with the person of the Father. And that's what the Orthodox Church fathers teach. That's why we continue to uphold the Father as the soul arcade.
Now beyond that, how much, how to have you have? Three minutes?
Okay, beyond that, I want to talk about his quotation which surprised me.
He cited to Gregor of Nissa, and I don't think.
He even understood what he was citing, because again he's pulling from Quote Minds, where he said that every operation is from the Father through the Son and in the Holy spirit. He is apparently not aware that this is the Basilian dictum that every Orthodox person knows very clearly from the liturgy, which is about the movement of the energies.
If you'd actually read Nissa in that section, you would know that he's talking about the energetic procession, which is the same thing as energetic manifestation.
But you didn't know that. You just saw a quote mind that.
You thought would help to prove philioak way, when it's actually the opposite of philiokuay. So I'm glad that you cited this, because energetic manifestation or energetic procession is very crucial to our doctrine.
The reason that we don't.
Believe in the Latin definition is precisely because they don't understand that the movement of the energies is necessarily connected to rejecting the person of the son as a spirator of the spirit.
So no, he's only.
Shown that he didn't understand any of what he read, if he even read it. Furthermore, the letter to Marhinus that he quoted doesn't say the Latins are correct what Maximus says, and the letter to Marhus is that at this point it's unclear what they mean. We ought to just leave it up to an open question, and it's not solved until twelve to seventy four of the Council Lions.
So this happens many centuries later, and we would agree that at that time it was not exactly clear because if you read Saint Hilary Portier, guess what he doesn't teach philioque, as Sushenski admits, he teaches that the father is the soul monarchia in the godhead. All that the father has belongs to the son is correct, except not paternity or causality. So it is not the case exclusively that all that the father has belongs to the son.
And anybody who knows orthoxiology would know that there's no semantic dodge. As we said, Toodius doesn't teach anything different. In fact, in eternal manifestation, if you'd read some of this from people on our side, is found in the Cappadocians. Yeah, I'll go ahead and just stop.
With that, all right, You have an additional forty five seconds. You can add it to any one of your positions. As we're talking about. Well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Okay, you want to have this second.
Okay, go ahead, you have forty five seconds left. Okay.
So where do we get the idea that this both essence energy teaching which is directly connected to the person of the Father as the sole monarchia in the Godhead. Notice,
the Cappadocians don't teach monotheism. They never talk about monotheism, if in anyone and by the way I sent all this information to him, I told him to listen to doctor bro Bo Brandtson's lectures on the monarchy of the Father, because he would have been able to see that in on the Holy Spirit of Saint Basil, Letter thirty eight to Saint Basil and Nissa against Eunomius, by both Basil and against Unomius Nisa theological orations, particularly Ration twenty five,
we have in those statements and as well as the decree of Constantinople one, that you must follow the Cappadocian view that the One God is the Father. There is no identification of the One God as the Essence as is taught in Augustinian theology. It just so happens that in Tim's mind, in the Roman Catholic mind, all the world accepted Augustinian theology is trinitarian, but they're totally ignorant
of constantinople One's Cappadocian theology. And guess what, Augustine's not taught theology is not taught a constantineble one.
All right, I would like to hear one's in the chat. If you think for the opening statement one's the chat, do you feel like there was a stronger or I shouldn't say feel Do you confidently know before your family and God that Jay Dire had a stronger argument? And two do you confidently know between your family and God that Timothy Gordon had a stronger argument? As you're writing that down, let's go ahead and we will jump in to our rebuttals. Are you prepared and ready to uh
to rebuttal? All right, Timothy, I'm gonna go ahead and reset the clock. You're going to have five minutes. Give me one moment here to adjust and set the clock. All right, If you're ready, your time starts now.
Okay, Uh. Constantinople One wasn't outside of communion. Jay misspoke there. Malicius was in communion, so it was an in communion council unless I misheard Je you said it was outside of communion a source on that. The father. Also, the father is the only auto theos. Well, malicious was in communion. It's a communion council. Uh, people check, I don't want to waste my time. The father is the only auto theos. The ark is the father. Now this is this is
my my soul time here, check it, google it. Uh. The father is the only auto theos is basic constantinople one was before before out of communion. Have you read Basil. We're talking about Malaysia. Jay, let's ask some questions during during during this first sex faults. So the father, the father is the only auto theos. This is absolutely affirmed by Catholic theology. One of Jay's tricks that everyone everyone has to look out for is he'll just say, well,
this is Cappadocia. Have you read Cappadocian theology. That well, according to Catholic theology, the father is the only auto theos. According to Phillyoquay, father is the only auto theos. The
ark is the fathers according to Catholic theology. According to the Phillyoquay the ark is the father's Let me say that, and it's not subordination to say Philly Oquay because they're all the essence, and because of the relations of opposition between the three persons of the Trinity, they're all the essence, and because of passive spiration of the Holy Spirit. Now,
you can quibble with scripture if you want. When Jesus says in Gone John's Gospel that all the Father has I have as well, evidently Jay didn't read that all the Father has I have as well, and he's saying that it's subordinationism for me to read that scripture and to say, Okay, two of the persons can have active spiration and one of the persons, the Holy Spirit, can have something called passive spiration. But that's the fact. The Father is the Autotheos, that's the ARKA. Retards in Chad
are probably saying something like, oh this is this is Orthodox. No, this is Catholic. This is Catholic as well. Of course the ark is the Father's. For the retards out there, only the divine, the Divine Essence only comes in an ungenerated way to the Father. Now, the Son is the only begotten. He gets it from the Father. So we'll say it again, the Holy Spirit gets it from the source, from the ark of the fathers through the Son. This
is not subordinationism. There's spiration happening actively from the Father and the Son and the Spirit. Now I wouldn't be making this bold claim, and neither would the Roman Catholic Church via filioque, if not for passages where Jesus affirms explicitly over against Jadier and any what else he wants to sight that everything he has comes from the Father explicitly. And so this is Saint Hilary of Poitier concerning the Holy Spirit. He is of the Father and the Son
his sources. I'll say that again. He is of the Father and the Son his sources. Or he is not without origin. He is from the Father and the Son. This is about as explicit as you can be. And Jay's saying just because I don't know, he's accuse me of quote mining. Let me read it again. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son his sources. Not to say that the Father is not the only autotheos, but the sources still can be the Father with the son.
Where he's not without origin. He is from the Father and the Son. If ever there was a time the Father was not, then the son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then the Holy Spirit was not. I don't know how this is merely an economic relation. This is Gregory Nazianzas, and it seems really strange to be talking about nazianzas As if this is not some sort of eternal relation drawn
between the Father and the Son. Tell me where I'm wrong, Tell me where I'm wrong, if this is eternal or not. When the Helper this is John fifteen, verse twenty six. I just want to get this out. When the Helper comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. I don't know with regard to Orthodox theology what this means, but this is scripture, and it
is utterly clear. It is the Father, the source, the direct spirator, through the Son, another direct spirator sending the Holy Spirit. This does not contradict the ark being solely gods, the moan arcade of gods. All right, time, all.
Right, So as we have the rebuttal there, we're gonna go ahead and we're gonna move over to Uh, We're gonna move over to Jay.
You're gonna have five minutes on the clock.
Let's try to keep it tight for the sake of the length of the of the debate and.
Make sure people are able to watch the whole thing. So you have five minutes. Are you ready? Just to make sure you have your notes in front of you. All right, great, all right, Jane, you can begin now. Yeah.
I mean, I don't think Tim understands half of what he's talking about, because if he wanted to pull out the Hillary quote. First of all, Shansky admits on that section on Hillary that this isn't really a good argue for anything to do with the philioquid. For one, Tim may not have heard or may not be aware what the lions in Florence definition actually is. But he tried to pull Hillary to say his sources. Are you aware that lions and Florence teach that the father together are
a single source of spiration? In your view, there's no dual sources. It's not the father and the son. So either Hillary got it wrong or that's not a text that proves eternal hypostatic double procession. The tacks in scripture, as I pointed out, don't necessarily prove what he thinks they prove. Again, because I pointed out in Isaiah forty eight, the text says that the Spirit sent the Son, and that's a messianic prophecy.
Section.
Nobody believes that the Holy Spirit is the center of the Son. If you read that economia back into the eternal relations. Again, he didn't address the argument I made about the power of generating inspirating. He said that the son must have this because because it shows also that he's equal to the Father, because he has everything that the Father has. Again, he's not realizing that when I'm citing the Cappadocians, I'm not just citing church fathers because
I'm citing them as random opinions. I'm citing what the decree of constantinople One says, which is that you must follow the Cappadocian dictum and the Cappadocian interpretation of the Niceno constant of the Politan creed. When the creed from that council, which was an edited version of nicea One's creed, says I believe in one God, the Father. It is identifying it as the Cappadocians all teach the sole source
or rka or monarchia of the Father. It is not the Latin essentialist definitions of Thomas Aquinas and later Roman Catholic councils, which, by the way, refutes what he said the first time around when he tried to make the Church Fathers into aristotomists.
Again, they're not.
Furthermore, he said in his opening statement that a sayety God is when he was cashing out his divine simplicity act as Purist doctrine, a sayety a sayty means self existence or of oneself.
That's what autotheos is.
So now he's attributing the very thing that he argued in his opening statement about the divine essence to the person of the Father, showing that he confuses essential properties with hyposthetic properties. But what do we expect from people who think that relations of opposition is a way to
cash out something in the triad? Nobody in the Church and the Church Fathers teaches a relation of oppositions, Because, as east Congar says in his famous essay on sant Agustin and the Kappadocians, that's an Augustinian idea that's developed in Thomas Aquinas. It doesn't exist in the first thousand years of the Church. And again because he actually thinks that relations are persons, because that's the tonistic teaching, when no, a relation is something that a subject has, right, a
subject has a relation, A relation is a predicate. Subjects persons.
He the father, so he doesn't underst and these basic distinctions that the Eastern Church fathers make, which he would have done a lot better to actually have read these Eastern Church fathers or to actually read maybe some of the academic texts from his own theologians about the Philioquay, admitting that a lot of these quote minds don't actually work to prove anything and actually work against his case because again he wants to downplay his own church's dogmatic definition,
and he's patently totally false. I've got scholars here right next to me for years have been talking about the fact that Constantinople one closed outside of communion with Rome. Saint Melidius of Antioch was in schism with Rome. He doesn't even know that, and so he just says google it, which again shows he's deficient, totally deficient in this area. It's the Malician schism is famous. Basil writes about it in his letters, and in fact Basil says Rome is
absolutely worthless. They can contribute nothing to helping the church in the East. They're a waste of time. Doesn't sound like papal supremacy to me. But what do you expect from people who don't know what the Cappadocian's taught.
They just think that they do, because well, I can read it all through Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas when.
He argues against the Phillyoque in contra against the errors of the Greeks.
I've got the recently printed book here. Guess what it's like, sixty seventy forgeries.
So shout out to George, our good buddy, and he just published the two volume Errors of the Latins text. The second volume is all about forgeries, and one of those key forgeries is against the errors of the Greeks Thomas Aquinas. And it's entirely possible that Aquinas legitimately believe that all the sources he was reading were authentic. But now we know, and it's now admitted in the scholarship.
The Vatican admits it as well. I've got the Alexandria document, which, by the way, I don't know if Tim ever had the time to read his own Vatican statement about the East, both in she eighty and here it admits most of the positions that I'm arguing for.
Okay, So, like I said, let's get some ones in two's in the chats. I want to read a couple of the super chats that we have here as we get into the cross examination game, just a second to get their question in line of what they want to talk about. Reminding you that you know, Buddy pp All said Tim has been forsaken. Everyone got to donate to the stream, or y'all are Yacubians? Like I mentioned. After that, tego Ocho said, let's go. I also have a couple
of critics late night tweakers. A critic of Tim said two dollars said, I feel embarrassed for Tim.
Now.
However, however, let's talk. God said, fy all polytheists idols are created. Tim might be a polytheist, but others are saying Jay Dyer ain't no Yukubian. You're not Yucubian.
Okay. Servant Nectoria said, Jake, keep it up.
R CC is a joke. I'm sure that's a Roman Catholic church. Maximus said, what I say has nothing to do with Jay. Also, we have let's talk. God said question for Tim, heaven has created? How can you see the divine essence in heaven in the beatific vision aka Creationean.
I don't think we're gonna answer those questions right now.
Don Visiu said, this is all retarded, splitting hairs over divine theosophy leads no one to Christ.
We also have real Carlism.
No matter what you think, who you think is winning, We're all better off knowing this conversation is drowning out James White's gay lisp. Also, we have machine Santo for two dollars, and they said, Jay looking twenty years older, but he's defined cooking.
Okay, Hey is he gay? Ass? Hey it's you know what? Yeah? Do trust me, man, I've aged so much. I see myself.
I've only been doing this for like about a decade now. When I first started, I looked like a teenager, like you know, look like a nice little kid.
And now I'm like nearly look dead. Warth thunder Us sent thirty dollars.
Said Tom was talking about potential equivocations in the start, yet his arguments hinges on them. He sneaks in quote denying actus purists passive potency as well sneaking in ortho real distinction scholastic major real distinction.
We also had a dork.
Jansen said, please ask mobs to ban anyone in the chat who says that we should act more civil in chat.
Fine, you guys can, guys go to war. And then true for once seesaid.
Tim said, we can't experience any uncreatedness of God as creatures, so how does the incarnation work? I'll read two more here before we'll move on to the cross examination. Cult of Modernism said and quote, we deny the son is either a cause or a father, but although we do not say that the spirit is from the Sun, we call him the spirit of the son. And he quotes there, and I think that's perhaps probably Latin, and I'm not
going to try to read it. Machine Santo also, I wonder if he believes the son is begotten by the son, because the son does what he sees the father doing. And one more quote from the same Culto as the second party said, the holy spirit is a spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father, and is the Son's spirit not as originating from him, but as proceeding through him from the Father the Father alone. It is cause. All right, you guys, keep sending your super chaps. We'll
be reading some more after this. We're gonna jump into the cross examination. If you're just joining the stream here, it's where they can ask questions and then interrupt. This is a very strict format that they've agreed to, and a lot of you are enjoying it. With that few thousand of you watching across the platforms, I appreciate you guys watching. Don't for you to like, share and subscribe to this video. Let's begin here with Timothy Gordon representing
the Catholic position. I'm going to reset the clock to be one moment. I've got to get out of the super chats. Your time starts now.
Jay, you think triadic relations of opposition don't exist. Triad is three, opposition is two, precisely, so there's no opposition a triad. So within a triad, there cannot be individual relations of opposition. It's relations of origin in our view, now, not in your view. As a matter of nature. Have you ever played paper scissors rock? Yeah? Do you understand that paper scissors rock is at heart triadic relations of opposition, which you just said don't exist. The triad does not
like paper rock scissors. No an, no, no, you said that that can't exit because two is indivisible within three relations of opposition we have, so as the trinity scissor paper rock, paper, these can exist, Bill, reality can exist with fatherhood. You said this to Christian Wagner. Do you care to amend your statement. It's a major logical I.
Think that relations of opposition described the thing as relations of origin.
That's what I disagreed with. You said, there's a mathematical problem that two doesn't go into because the diad is not a triad. But you understand that there can be relations of opposition within a triad.
Speaking naturally, there's not not in the divine triad.
No, no, we'll explain why. I just demonstrated the relation. Okay, so you're going to play the game. Demonstrated paper scissors rocks doesn't exist. That's not the triad. That is a triad. That's three there. Do you how many positions are there
with just three? And how many how many oppositions and relations triad is so you have a different triadology, and that's why this doesn't explain why it's different in the trinity, because we works perfect because we You say that, but you don't know our position relationship.
I'm asking within the position of the trinity. Shut up and let me answer that question. Your position relations of origin is our position, not relation of opposition.
This is just equivocation. Wait, no, I've heard enough. That's equivocation on a turn. Equivocation. You said the orthodox position is a quick quote. You're not even familiar with opposition, Christian are I'm talking to one dude. Triadic relations of opposition cannot exist because two doesn't go into three. That's what I said. I said, I diead is what opposition is. I didn't say two doesn't go in I th that's you're mistaking contrariety and opposition. You don't know you can
have an opposition with a relations position. How do you don't know how? Patrician?
So you haven't played number theory is not your you're ever an now specialty the way that paper argues for a did.
Yeah, I would say he's asking he's asking you to cut your response. He wants to continue on this questioning within a triod. Within a triad, you can have oppositions and it doesn't contradict the triad. I showed the trinity show that I created. You didn't show that. You just said it it's an analogy. Well, how do you know, How do you know what matches up to the triad? You don't. No, I didn't say it matches up to the triad. You're you're not cross examining.
Your analogy doesn't work. I thought, that's the thing is it works perfectly.
Reality, filiality in fatherhood, those are opposed within a trinity.
You're saying they're not opposed. That's not what relations of opposition.
Forget my analogy oppress This is the most important distinction within the entire philio O. Wait, hold on, So you're saying that affiliation and fatherhood are not opposed in the traditional ways of a couple.
Will you let me answer this please? Are they opposed? There are real relations?
Are they opposed? Let me finish.
We do not believe in cashing out who the persons are by relations of opposition, because it's relative.
So filiation and fatherhood are not opposed. It's relative because you because there's the third part. They're not a posed.
You can talk about relations in the triad, but they don't ground the persons. That's Lostky's critique of this. You could have just read the things.
I sent you, and then you want to be asking no, no, no no, because you didn't read anything I asked you.
I asked you very specifically. Can there be oppositional terms that I'm telling you from ourselves? You don't understand? Is the way that dichotomies work. We can have we can dichotomies.
All I was showing mathematically is that we can conceive of a triad that has three parts and three relations that are all diadic. But there's there's no part. It's just parts, and it doesn't work there. No, of course, not right. So that's what doesn't work. But there are relations of opposition, No, there's not. Yeah, there's relations of origin.
Well, why don't you just understand our position before trying to trap me on your position?
I don't hold to your position? Can you? Is there a single Eastern thinker between Photius and Blacker? Okay, so we got that. So there there can be relations of opposition between some trinities. Uh, I never granted any of this. Is there a single Eastern thinker between Photius and Blackeranne who embraces the eternal procession? Or they all just believers
in economic procession for those four hundred years. Can you name a single thinker between eight hundred and twelve fifty who says that there is an eternal procession from the Sun to the Holy Spirit?
Energetic procession is taught in the telmost against John Becos, it's in our council. Okay, Wait, so you think you don't know what our councils teach. I'm asking you, right, but is there a single person and you're not you're not aware of the temost against John Becko's You guys have thirty seconds, son, but so so, can you explain to me what that is? It's a document from the Palamite sonods in use against John Becko's Palamite sentence.
What year they're in? The thirteen hundreds? Okay? No, I said, I wore between eight hundred and twelve fifty. I picked the dates for specific reason. What if, because it's very important to my case. The Catholic cases that between serial between Photius and serial areas, they completely botched the understanding of what Philly o'quay is, and then for the next four hundred and fifty years they reduced all the relations between the Sun and the Holy Spirit to economic ones.
And then when they came back around the time of the council, you're citing that they came back in parsed language. It's eternal, but it's not hypostatic.
All right, we're gonna have to cut that there, and if you want to continue to respond to that, we're gonna have to move over to Jay Dyer. Let me go ahead and reset this, and you have five minutes on the clock. I gave him a minute bleed because it was interesting. I'll give you an extra minute bleed if you need to as well. The time starts now.
It's a stupid argument because I showed you from Sishensky that he says Basil talks about eternal manifestation. The very quote that you gave from Nissa about the movement of the energies. You didn't even know that it's energetic procession. So you read things and you quote things, no idea what the context is, or that it's actually disproving.
You not true. You're begging the question, begging the question energetic procession, what does that even mean? You cided Nissa, every operation moves from the Father through the son in the spirit precisely, what do you think operation is there? What do you mean? What is that? What's the word? What is what's the word of the means hypostatic? What's the word for operating? Begging the question because you're begging the question because what's energetic procession? What's the word is? Right?
You use to avoid saying that it moves? To you, goober, what's the word when you're talking about the word in the Greek for operation? There, I don't, I don't know erga. Yeah, I just said so the movement energy in your quote, but except energeia has three definitions that are that are susceptible of meaning there you would you know? This is what I warned people that your own Yeah you don't, No, you don't, which can mean either operation, It can mean action, it can mean work, it can mean product.
You just admitted you didn't know what the word was. Now what I said is that the did you requires? So if it's energy, if it's a word, show that it's not hypostatic. That has nothing to do with the fact that you misunderstood the quote. No, I didn't misunderstand it at all.
I didn't miss about energetic procession. You didn't know that because you didn't know what it was. Yes, I did. I said it. You're just lied because you said you didn't know what it was energy. But the point is you didn't know. You're begging the question, you know as you knows, versus you have to lie the question, isn't. You're changing the subject because you just got caught lying. I didn't get caught lying. I said before you did.
Why why does it matter? Here's how Jay proved because that energetic.
Because look, we're going we're going in circles right now, and we're gonna have to agree to disagreeable. On the next section, you said, if one, uh, you have three minutes, if one spire, if one cannot spirate, there less does the spirit produce?
A Person's ridiculous. I don't care if you think it's ridiculous. Answer it. Repeat the question. You said, if one cannot spirrate, they're less talking about the sun, right, m H, Well, I was talking about all three persons. Oh so the spirit spirates, yeah, passively, the past spirit spir rates. The spirit spirates passively. He produced, Well, who does he produce? Does he produce? He rates passively? You've never heard the distinction, No,
who does the Spirit produce. The Spirit produces passively himself. Hit the spirit act the spirit. If you never heard the distinction between active and passive spiration is the have you is the essence of the source, according to see all you do. You could come in here and you say, according to my theology, it's this. According to campus theology, our theologian is passive the spirit. You got to answer the question. We're not going to run the clock. The
Holy Spirit proceed inspirates passively, which means it's done to him. Yes, he receives it active versus passive. So yes, he himself aspirted. We call that active aspiration.
Did you even know that? You know it's the Son? Are you familiar? Are you familiar who the Holy Spirit? You're saying the Holy Spirit produces himself?
No, I said, that receives spiration from and this is a passive spiration. Who does hespirate? He doesn't actively spired? Who does thespirate? You said he has to he has to spirate to have the same part. You're just playing games again because you don't know the Father son actively spirate. You think it's the Father only in Roman Catholic the tell me what I think the Holy Spirit.
He's answering the question claimed that the Holy I'm just telling you how a theology has You're just talking and you're insisting because I've got you on this. You have not you said that if you don't produce a person, you're supporting it.
Who does the Holy Spirit produce? No? I said, spir eight, you have to spy if you don't back up the rest. Does son have the same power as the father? Yes? Does the spirit have that power? The Spirit has a different power, which is to what wishable to produce who? No, it's a passive spirit who, which is not the same thing it's actively produced. So he does I thought the language cause? So the spirit is not a cause. You've never heard this distinction in Roman Catholic theology. Spirit a cause?
Have you ever heard this distinction in Roman? Not answer you?
He won't answer the questions because he doesn't. Is the spirit of causes?
A cause? Is the spirit of thirty seconds on the clock to get an answer? Or do you want to end the question? Is the Holy Spirit? There's also a cause? He is the cause in so far as he's passively spied? Who or what?
Of?
Who? Are what? Exactly? He just lost. No, wh you asked me, do you know what theology? Had you ever heard the distinction? You're here to tell me what your theology is? No? No, not okay. Every time I ask you said do you know what theology? Do you know a theology? Answer? No, you don't know. Answer you claim your spirit. You're just making it at home? No, at homes? And who does? By the way, the reason he won't answer, no, you open who does produce? You opened up? He's saying,
why won't you answer? No? You just said who? Yeah exactly, I said you our term is passive spression. No, you won't. You won't accept these people have different that. He produced terminological bases for making the claim. We don't accept subordinationism. I know you don't accept it, but I'm telling you how you have it orthodolosity. Say it's subordination, if it's if it's the sun and the spirit together. All you're doing is insisting on your upside. You have answer, You just have silence.
I said, answer is an answer your father and son. No I'm not, you said the son. Who does the spirit produces?
Who? He passively spirates? Who? Who? What it's? Who does he? Do you understand the difference between an active forms and a passive verb. He is the cause of Do you understand the difference between an active verb and a passive before me?
Who's he called active verb? Has is transit is the spirit of the cause. Do you not understand called him a cause? He's not transitive?
You called him a cause? Do you understand transitivity? You're not going to answer it. He won't answer. He's a passive cause. I answer according to Roman Catholic, he is a pastor who were on time. Let's do this.
Here's I'm gonna I want to leave it with two questions. He's asking you a question.
Nothing that you ask asked the question clearly, and I want to hear just a simple answer. We'll leave it at that. What is the question? Repeat it? What is the one question the cause of who? Go ahead? What is the cause of him? Exactly? Can you act?
Asking questions to questions which, to be fair, said of the moderator, You know that's saying that's It's the point to where I feel like we've gone in a complete circle. I'm going to take completely unbiased here and say we can't come to a conclusion when we're asking questions to questions.
So we will just leave it there. We will move here. I think, can I make a response? Yeah, you can. You can make a response or ask one question, but it's got to be as simple to the point, not a paragraph. Just what's the statement. So in Roman Catholic theology we say active spiration by the father and the son, passive spiration by the spirit. Passive means that one is not acting but is acted upon. It is a passive potency. I asked you if he's a cause, and you said
he was. Yes, there's one soul. Cause are you talking to K I thought you were talking one soul causes the I just add you said I don't know. I didn't know.
I sincerely didn't know what you I the term that the spirits are cause the.
Spirit is a passive spirator of who? And I said, this doesn't make sense in the context of active and passive. So he doesn't. He's not a cause. You're making it like there's a flaw. There's not. This is just how we call you're not. This is how we explain. So he won't the monarchy, you don't explain it. And John chapter sixteen, you're dodging the basic question. I'm not dodging twenty things. I'm not dodging Jay. All I'm seeking to
do is exitgy John sixteen. The fact that that Jesus said, Jesus says everything the Father has, I have as well. And you said, well, the cause that subordination. That the cause you're trying to drive the position into subordinationism. And I'm saying, no, there's such a thing as passive spies. I sure stand you're saying that. But what you're showing a cause you didn't show anything. You just say, are you? Are you? Are you? Are you satisfied with the answer?
Do you feel like he answered no, he's not about dodging. But okay, And do you believe that you're answering or do you think do you agree with me you're dodging. I'm answering on behalf of Roman Catholic theology that we have.
What are you dodg because you're also you're dodging my question? Do you think you dodged him? Or do you think you give an absolute answer?
I gave an absolute answer. What is your absolute answer? I just I just want to know. For the absolute answer is when we say active spiration we mean that the Father causes the Holy Spirit through the hypostasies of the hypostasis of the sun. These are active because the sun aids Uh. The view of John Damascene is literally source, Father, River, Sun, lake, Spirit. So he's saying, well, well, what does the spirit do?
I'm saying, well, in Roman Catholic theology, which is perfectly uh philly Okuwa is perfectly square with this analogy, With this analogy that we would say that that is what's called a passive spiration. He receives it.
And it's a difficult question, as he asked many times, as he was asked many times, was when you said that the spirit is a cause, which you affirmed multiple times.
I asked you cause of who are what? And you had no answer. No, I didn't have no answer. I was saying that the spirit is caused. And this is this is why you say it's subordinate. You said he's a call I said, he's a passive spirator of who or what? So he's saying he's he's a spy ray to or of who are what does the passive voice as a verb have Does it mean cause or does it assert a cause has been done? He's a cause grammatical you said he's a cause. I feel like I
feel like we're arguing semantics. I feel like this is semantics because you're saying one thing, he's saying another, and I feel like we're getting We're not getting nowhere. I'm just giving the answer. According to our theology, we the Holy Spirit is a passive spirator. That's the whore that can be who are what? The Holy Spirit receives spiration from God through the sun, and he receives it. Okay, Is that clear generation produces the sun? Right? Yes, generation produces.
So let me go to this because because of the statements here, we're not going to go very long on the closing. I want to give it it basically like a well basic called a second rebuttal bit of closing because there's a miscommunication or an intentional dodging. But I am going to stay completely unbiased in the moderation. Say, I will leave the chat up. I want to know from you guys in the chat. We'll switch it up
the ones in the chat. If you think that uh, Timothy answered the question and that he answered it according to what he said, two's in the chat. If you think he's lying slash dodging. I guess you could use different words upending what you think and agree with Jay and someone's like, I've seen the chat you accusing me of agree with both of them. I am neither orthodox nor Catholics. You guys can all hate me because I'm neither and I don't have a.
I just articulated what the view is. Articulated you. You've given that answer four times in acting. All right, so let me let me go to this.
I'm gonna don't you know what aspiration means because you said he cause he's a cause I said you said that.
If I said that when you're sputtering out sentence fragments in the cross X, I never said that. I never intended to say the spirits.
Cause that's why you got silent and had to think about how to talk your way out of it.
I got silent because I'm trying to talk over because no, that's not true.
The Holy Spirit doesn't have the power of the son, right, so he's subordinated, so he's lacking a power.
No, no, we say he's not subordinated because he is a passive. But he doesn't produce a person. Right on your view, you are the Son to the Father.
There is subordination in the trinity, yeah, role subordination, not ontological subordination.
That's called monarchia. Yeah yeah, except no, that's not true. You're picking who's subordinated, either the Holy Smell or the Son together. No, no, that's a logical.
Does Jesus say that he worships the Father and he does the Father's will?
Does the role of subordination role? No, No, you don't know. Basically, he says that the Father has is mine as well. Does he says, let me come here, let.
Me come here and ask you a question, Because from somebody who's not as well versed in the news of this debate between Catholics and Orthodox it would just, in a structural sense, seem like perhaps you're avoiding answering something directly to avoid being seen as crazy or to like not be seen as in Saint colag If somebody you know asked someone like, oh, are you a good question, like are you a white supremacist or something, and you know, it's sort of like a question. If you answer it,
you're kind of screwed either way. If you say no, people are gonna get mad because you don't like your race. If you say yes, they're going to call you an extremists and try to disqualify you.
So it comes across like there's a little bit of that moving around. Understand, you're saying I'm lying because he's questions I'm saying. I'm saying I'm saying to me, I'm saying I'm getting the dancing. I'm not saying it's lying. I'm singing that. Like, maybe there's a more direct way you want to answer it that you're not saying. He's saying. I don't know what he's saying you're lying about because
I don't. I don't understand because I don't know if you talking about I haven't said it across examination in a cross examination, though, you're harassing the witness. When I said, here's our two active spirators, one passive spira, you're like, well, what is that? I was like, that's our theology. And then you're like, that's a dodge. That's not a dodge. Two active spirators. We have the father the son.
I thought the father generated, not spirated the spirit the fun Wait, the father general generate right then he spirates, right?
Yeah, what I was what I was trying to get out is the passivity of the spirit. And then you said, you said that's a cause. I said, that's not a cause. So how many causes are there? I think there's one and that's who the father. Okay, but he gives cause alary to the son, right, he gives the ability through the son.
So many causes? Is that it's one, but he gives it to the son. Yes, this is this is hypostatic. This is hypostatic.
What does the son contribute that the father doesn't to the to the spiration? Well, I mean, are we just going on an extra cross examination? Oh so he doesn't want to answer that.
I know, so I don't want And we could take this conclusions as a little extension to see where if you guys, could further explain your position only because of someone who's trying to position.
Let's just go ahead with it as trying to understand the position. I'm thinking about the audience. And if you were, let's say, a prop sitting here and you're not familiar with the you know, consequential dogma from from Catholics or from Orthodox I'm sitting here like trying to actually understand what you're saying. And I am not accusing you of lying. I'm actual accusing you of doing nothing.
But I'm saying to me, I'm like, okay, I know, I wouldn't know if you were jumping around from what he's saying, or.
You can understand the Orthodox view of the Trinity from what he said. That's a good question. So let's let's do a question, because if you're being object no, no, you're lying something, I wouldn't know if you're lying, right, I wouldn't know if you're dodging him, or if you're lying, I wouldn't know.
I'm not saying he's lying about the Catholic position, that he's representing the Catholic position. I'm saying that in the course of that discourse, he's lying about what he previously he said saying no, I never said that when he did say the cause part, yes.
Okay, because that's how I thought. Okay, Then I got confused. I thought he was saying that you were not right. I said it was unintentional. And if you said, is it a cause, and I've said yeah, yeah, yeah, So half the time I'm brushing you off. That's not the That's what this was all about. I was saying a Roman Catholic point of view. Well, it's not a misunderstanding the Roman Catholic point of view. I said, all along, we have these two. I mean, it's an upside down triangle.
And all I was saying is it's subordination. Uh, he's accusing us of subordination just because I cited John chapter sixteen where Jesus says, all the Father has I have as well, And he's saying, well, then he cannot the Essence, the Divine Essence cannot come to the Holy Spirit through the sun.
That's not what I said. You don't even understand the argument, making a very clear argument. You're in it seems to be not understanding that because it's basic and it's very simple.
Read it's very simple. Did you read the mistagogees, it's very're gonna cut that. We're gonna cut that there. And by the way, to the people saying I'm trying to understand, because if you don't know, I'm just saying in a very basic sense, I'm like you, guys.
Part of the reason why we're hosting this debate, and I think it's very important, is personally, I'm very interested in understanding what church I should go to. Whether Catholic is a church to join and to become a part of, whether Orthodox.
And a lot of you guys are searching this too.
I don't think a lot of you guys who are Catholic or Orthodox may be wanting to uh, you know, revert or convert whatever you want to call it in your language into the other uh uh you know order. But for myself, you know, because just because I started attending a Catholic church, I've been to an Orthodox church before too. For a while, I've gone to a Catholic church, and sometimes they aren't always very open about exactly what they believe.
There's a lot of disagreements.
So kind of the point of this is, is someone like myself to sit here and try to make sure if he's saying he's lying. I'm just asking what he's saying he' lying about. Is he saying about what he said previously or about the Catholic's position, because I'm interested to find out to make sure I'm getting the correct position, and if if that's a correct position, I appreciate it
and your position. However, I do think in a quick in a quick summary, like if you could do in like one paragraph, just what is the official Orthodox position on this on this topic, because.
It was a lot of this back and forth and then you you go, is this the closing statements correct? Correct? For the section I stated succinctly what the Catholic position is.
Yeah, yeah, I'm just saying, but inside with an end summary and make sure you restate it just for people who were new to the stream or who got lost in the argument and the tit for tat what what was it? And if you could finish, and then we'll have you, we'll have you closed as well.
Yeah.
So essentially what I'm taking issue with is the idea that he said if the son does not spi rate, he's subordinated because he's not having all that the father has.
So I ask, does the spirit spi rate? And or excuse me?
Yeah, and then he says he's a passive he passively spir rates.
I say, who does the spir rate?
He says, he aspirated passively because he receives spiration.
That's what passive means.
Because he thinks that being spy rated is spiration, which is a basic blunder. No, moving on, I'm doing my talk, so you hush please, moving on, he says, I mean, I'm sorry that you just dizz bad in this section.
Dude. It would have helped if you'd read the Mystagajy, but you didn't. Passive spiration, you didn't. You said you did. Stop stop, let's keep it. You go here and then we'll switch. You can make fun of me all you want, and you're let's.
Keep let's keep the personal tax out and let's go and just explain the facts, and then we'll go over to Tim.
He'll explain the facts as well. So I understand. You know, he's got a lot going on, he's busy.
I don't fault him for not reading the stuff that I send, but it's been multiple years where I've linked and sent him these texts which he hasn't read. If you had read the Mystagogy, he would know that. One of the first arguments in the mystagaji Uh, and it's stated it multiple times over. It's also repeated in the appredicted Treatise of Sant Gregory Palmis by the Way centuries later.
The same argument that to say that there's sport nation because the son doesn't have the power of causality becomes a problem because the Holy Spirit now lacks that causality. To talk about passive spiration and to equate that with to to equate being spirrated with spiration is just so silly. I don't even know how to respond to it. It's it's fundamentally stupid.
Because spiration is what picks out the Holy Spirit. Generation is what picks out the Son.
They're called hypostetic properties, and for Orthodox we relate them to the Father in relations of origin. That's the Orthodox teaching. The Cabadocians, it's restated. You want to read Loski's paper called the Procession of the Holy Spirit Orthodox Doctrine. You can also read a Roman Catholic that talks about this and admits all my points by Eaves Kongar. He wrote an essay about Augustine relations of opposition and the Cappadocians, which also makes all of my arguments. So again, our position
is that the Father is the one true God. He is the sole archae, the monarchia. It is the teaching of Constantinople One. The Cappadocians don't teach the Philly oquaper, so I said, because causality is the hyposthetic.
Property that is not communicable.
And again the argument that the son becomes the cause, imbalances the trinity and creates a diad because no one teaches that the spirit is a cause, and so he lacks causality in both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox model. But we're consistent because we don't give the father's unique hypostatic marker and property of being cause to the son.
And just to ask you simply, do you feel like he he dictated correctly or at least to what you know to be the actual position of the Orthodox Church on this issue. Yeah, okay, you do. So I just want to make sure that that's so we're clear because the chat, you know, was a little bit all over the place, not not knowing what was going on.
All right.
So then going over to Timothy, also to Jay, please don't interrupt. We're gonna just keep this a straight, a straight uh diatribe here. So if you want to go ahead and give your position, one.
Off Jay's tricks is he'll laugh at the Roman Catholic position, which which he knows what it is, and then he'll ask for a term to be identified, like passive spiration, as if it's being made up ex nilo or something, and he'll say, well, how does that relate to Orthodox theology? And I was saying, well, it doesn't. That's the tension that exists between the Orthodox and the Catholic position. And he laughs, and then all of the Bots in Chat say, oh, okay,
a good score. I would go back to the heart of Trinitarian theology for Roman Catholics, which really has to do with actus purus, the fact that the consubstantial Father Son, Holy Spirit relate to one another oppositionally. And this is within the substance. He was making fun of the term usiological. That just means they all relate within one substance. There's nothing uncreated outside the substance of God, the Divine Essence, Father Son, hohold Spirit. They relate to each other with
a distinction, a distinction of operation. Jay had this infamous debate with Christian Wagner where Christian Wagner was getting him to admit, essentially that he didn't understand what a relation of opposition was. I brought this up today and I was saying, Okay, have you ever played paper scissors rock? The reason I did that is because paper Scissors Rock proves that conceptually, at least at the very least conceptually if you're trying to win paper scissors rock Triadic relations
of opposition do exist. Just because there are three couplets doesn't mean that there is not individual tension or opposition or a dichotomy between ab BC and c A. This is absolutely nonsensical. It was an embarrassment that Jay said this, and I was saying, Okay, that's fine. When I brought this up with him earlier, he said, we'll prove that that exists for the Trinity. I'm just proving that it's
conceptually possible. So it's an embarrassment to say that, to deny that the relations of opposition which characterized the Catholic view of the Trinity, which work very very well, because then we don't end up having deposit in uncreated energy outside of God that is not created, not a creature, but is really distinct from God, which is a nonsense term. It means to gods are more or infinite gods. As Jay said earlier, infinite divine energies. He said, infinite divine energies.
You're going to say, I'm that's not a lie. That's what I said. That's what I'm saying. That's an absurdity. We avoid this problem by saying we allow distinctions within the substance of God, we don't allow distinctions within God that would be concerning or about another other essence, an
essence and energy's distinction. And this all boils down to relations of opposition, which jay I still am not clear on his position whether or not whether or not relations of opposition can exist within a threesome within a triad? Can they that you think the trendy is a threesome? It's it's three? Do they? Do they exist? What exists? Can a B and C oppose one another? Within the triad of holy.
Spiatistic number theory diad relates to two, not a triad?
Well, diet is always two. That's not what I'm asking. There's no opposition in a triad because opposition is a diet. No, there can be opposition within individual constituents of a tria. Okay, so for for all time, I want this on records. I mean again, how much time do I have left? Technically here on the clock you have you have ten seconds? When can give you extra thirty seconds if you need? All? Right?
So within a triad, so people know when we're talking mathematically here, individual can can maintain their opposition, their contrariety. This is a matter of simple fact. And Jay said, as a matter of simple fact, that can't even happen. When I pressed him on this, he said, oh, that's only within the trinity. You lose. That's wrong. No, yep, I don't understand.
Wrong.
I'm saying, it's very very simple, you thought, because don't into three the opposition. This is central understanding correctly what I said, that's what What did you say? Then?
I said that diad in Patristic numbering example, right, it's it's counting by division. Do you know what that is? Of course, versus what counting by identity? You don't know those things.
But that's not what it was. My question explaining to you that you don't know that Tristan within theology counts triads. If you had debated the Muslims, you would know, because I have to do this. You said no, and you're like a Muslim because you don't know how there's two different ways. You said, no, there's two different ways to count. You told you told Christian counting debate because you don't you nor him understand this point. If you'd read Kogar
on this point, he says what I'm saying. I don't have to have read Coongar right, because you know these economies want dichotomy is not a relation of opposition, Elijah, do you understand economy is not a relation of opposition?
Yes, it is.
It's all right, I'm you Dichotomy is not a relation of opposition.
We're going to be paper because it talks about can economy is not a relation of opposition.
That's the most absurd thing. For a second, you have you have, you have a choice. I'm gonna give us a choice here.
Either A we can continue arguing this, but then we're gonna have to skip the third topic altogether.
Do the timing of the debate. Uh, and what's what's going on here? I want the paper?
Okay, So then so then if that's then we're gonna agree to disagree on what that is and we can talk about things later. But I think we're gonna leave it there. Okay, We're gonna take a couple minute break here. Before we do that, I want to read a couple more of the superchats. Remember, if you guys are leaving superchats, we'll read them as we go along. We appreciate you guys doing so. We have Jay Betteley or said Tim, I'm sure you're a decent guy.