Let's get into a little bit of what Redeemed Zuomer, who seems to have spiraled out of control since our debate. For whatever reason, he posted that he was freaking out that people in his discord were converting to Orthodoxy and he was going to ban talking about Orthodox stuff because so many people in his discord we're starting to look into Orthodoxy. It doesn't seem like since our discussion he's
engaged in any attempts to better understand our positions. It seems like he's in damage control mode and flipping out constantly. And he does the thing where he'll say a bunch of stuff about you personally and then apologize and then we'll go. So just keep it to the issues. Okay, I never said anything about him personally, So if you respond to this, just keep it to the issues, because I'm not I never said anything about you as an individual.
Redeem Zuomer mastering reform theology? Well, does Redeem Zumer actually have a master's in theology? Why would we think that he can teach us master level stuff in theology as what is he like twenty one? As you?
But despite the differences between Catholics and Protestants, they're a lot closer to each other than they are to Eastern Orthodoxy. The biggest split in Christianity was not the Protestant Reformation, it was the Great Schism.
Between Protestants and Romancalities are closer to each other. I'm not sure about that. I mean, I guess it just depends on which doctrine we pick. So I'm assuming he's going to pick original Sin, I.
Mean, Western and Eastern Christianity. Here's why we Reformed Protestants side with the West.
What the heck kind of music is this? I feel like I'm at Santa's Village and I'm supposed to what do we picking up? Freaking It's a year round Santa's Village where I'm picking up ornaments? What kind of weird keyboard like boomer keyboard Cassio's songs is he playing?
Eastern Orthodoxy is a beautiful tradition that we can all be inspired by. But the reason we don't agree with them is because Eastern theology denies a lot of things that the Bible teaches.
So we're going to have the old word concept fallacy that even though we all agree that the texts have to be interpreted, I'm just going to say that the words mean what they say, and they say what they mean. So this is a common mistake that we see Muslims, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and even some Orthodox engage in, which is just the basic idea that there's a plain, simple meaning of all texts and that other traditions get quote too philosophical and they don't stick to the plain, perspicuity
meaning of the text. But our texts perspicuous, do they actually possess perspose? Do they possess viscosity? Breakdown? No, it really I mean, you could say within a book that it's possible that certain texts are clearer than other texts. Certainly within the Bible, certain texts are clearer than other texts, but that's partly going to depend on who's reading it, and what their education level is, what their background is, what they do, and don't know how familiar they are
with the rest of the book. So saying, even admitting that certain areas of the Bible might be clearer than other areas still doesn't itself tell us to each individual which area will be clearer. In other words, something that an educated person thinks is pretty obvious might not be obvious to an an educated person. Maybe they're reading about you know, through the eye of a needle or something like that, right, and you don't know this rhetorical idiom
or whatever. You don't know this hyperbole. Okay, Well, if you're an uneducated person, that might be totally ambiguous to you. An educated person might think, well, this is obviously hyperbole. So you see that even when we say, or even if we admit that there are quote clearer passages, it doesn't itself tell us which passages are themselves universally clear or unclear. So a lot of times Protestants and we notice the same thing with Muslims. It's exact move that
Jake did. Have a very naive epistemology and a naive linguistic theory or semiotic view that the text just mean what they say, and they say what they mean, and that typically goes along with word concept fallacy. People who have that one dimensional view of language and texts typically fall into the mistake, as I'm sure we're going to see with Redeemed Zuomer, of thinking that the word that's used always has the same meaning in the same context
and the same reference. So, for example, logos as it's used by the this is a common Roman Catholic word concept fallacy. Well, Marcus Aurelius says logos. John One says logos. So they mean and refer to the exact same thing. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Just because the word is used. We need to know the intentional context, and the lexical context, and the entire books context, and perhaps
even the entire religion's context. So you see that individual words are situated within broader context, the sentence, the paragraph, the chapter, the book, the book as a whole is in the case of the Bible, because it's books within books,
and then the tradition as a whole. Perhaps, So, for example, I can't take a word that is exterior to the Orthodox tradition or to the Biblical tradition, find that word in say greekfulilosophy or Platonism, and then interpret that word within the Christian context as having a one to one meaning with the Greek term. This happens a lot, for example with news. Well, the Greek philosophers use the word news when you Orthodox use it, that must mean the
same thing. So it's just purely the intellect or some higher faculty of the intellect. According to say Greek philosophers, it's not what it means an Orthodox. It corresponds to the Hebrew idea of the heart, which is not the intellect. So you see that with whether it's news or whether it's logos. These are just examples, but the same type of mistake can happen when we're looking at even English texts or English words like person, Does person mean just
an individual? Nature? Does it mean something distinct from nature? How we understand person and nature, for example, will have tremendous implications on our view of the Trinity, in our view of Christology. So a big part of this mistake, and a big part of this really rookie sophomore understanding, and a lot of Internet people engage in very common amongst Protestants and Muslims, somewhat common amongst Roman Catholics as well,
but maybe less Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics tend to be, if they're into these topics, a little more educated than the average Muslim or the average Protestant, so they can
sometimes avoid some of this issue. But as Saint Basil says, pretty much every heretic is making some kind of linguistic mistake, usually right, and he's speaking in that case of eunomious and the Eunomian heresy kind of giving the idea of ingeneracy or unngenerate in generate basically identifying that with the divine essence, and so therefore anything that's not in generate or ungenerated is therefore not God or less than God.
Hence the son, since he is not ingenerate, and he is generate or has an origin, or he is not unoriginate, then he must not be God. That's the Eunomian premise, or that's the version of the Eunomian argument. And so Basil argues against this as the arrest of capitations. Do that not every word is referring to or picking out the same thing, right, Think about how many times we've made this argument with the phrase like doctor Branson does
God g Od? Because God can pick out different things, And many many Muslims since the Jake debate have already been saying, oh, you lost the debate when you said you believed in little g three little g gods, and the argument there is just missing the whole point that this is a linguistic distinction between what God can pick out, as in distinct persons, divine nature, and so the one True God, the one God. Capital typically is picking out the person of the Father, at least in the Patristic period.
That's always what it is, and that's why the nicing Creed is a monarchical trinitarian doctrine that says, I believe in one God, the Father. All the Capitalians speak this way. So little g God then refers to God from God. Did you notice the nicing Creed says God from God, light from light. Okay. So that's a distinction within unity. That's the way that we account for distinction within unity.
Of course, Muslims, for example, whatever their position, whether they're a Shari or Salafi, or whether they're whatever Athari, the different Muslim positions Neil, Platonist, Shia, they're all going to have different ways and attempts of accounting for unity and distinction in God. So that's why I typically frame the debate what the Muslims has. It's not a debate between multiple who's got the unity position and who's the polytheist. It's two different positions. Give me an account for unity
and multiplicity. And that's why the counting issue is so important there because both Muslims and Christians, when they're accounting for unity and distinction in God, are going to count by division and by identity. And if you didn't notice, when the Creed, for example, says undivided God is undivided, that's counting by division. When al Gazali in his Tenth Proposition and the Moderation of Belief book talks about being
God being undivided, he's counting by division. Aristotle and category six metaphysics, I think it's around book ten and metaphysics counting by division. Now, I didn't say any ancient medieval world they only counted by the division. That was a mistake that Jake assumed that because I said they counted by division, I said they only counted by division. No, I said first order, second order, and position, two different types of things even in the medieval philosophers that were
counted in different ways. So it would have actually behooved Jake to be familiar with some of the responses to the argument that we only count by identity, because he just assumed that I was saying, no, we only count by division, which I didn't say. I said we count in both ways. And then he set up a false either or which he didn't realize would trap his own position that if he's going to count the attributes by identity, then he's got multiple necessary attributes, which is a makes
his position policyist. So there you go.
A thousand years ago, Christianity split in half when the Patriarch of the East got kicked out of the church by the Pope. Now, a lot of this political, but it was also theological, meaning it has to do with what we think about God. Even though Catholics and Protestants disagree on a lot, they have the exact same view of God. The Eastern view is slightly different. There's really six main issues they disagree on, which can be abbreviated with the acronym Frost.
Frost and all. Well, this is an interesting, unique approach to this question. Let's see what is What do we disagree on? Philioquate reason, maybe original sin, probably simplicity, Yeah, theasis sacrifice, Well, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant view of sacrifice are not the same. So I don't know where he's gonna I don't know if he thinks he's gonna find commonality with Roman Catholics on quote sacrifice.
All these issues are connected to each other. For each of these issues, there's a Western view and an Eastern view, and the Western view of all these issues is the biblical one, the biggest.
Okay, yeah, good one good argument there, Just at that the quote West is right on all of these issues and the East is wrong. I'm sure he's going to give some kind of argument, but I'm not sure that you. I'm not sure that actually this is I mean Roman Catholics on the Philly oquay. I mean, they have a lot more of a nuanced position. But this is kind of assuming that Reformed and Protestants themselves have a unified position.
Where does he get the idea that quote Protestantism is a unified position on any of these issues at all. There's no Protestant unity. Maybe you could say there's unity on like a couple super generic positions, like we follow the Bible over tradition. Okay, maybe that's one of the quote unifying things of Protestants. Roman Catholics and Protestants don't have the same view of sacrifice. I don't know what he thinks the Western view of Theosis's that's different from
I mean, do protests don't even teach Theosis? So I mean this is again I'm predicting this is going to all be a bunch of word concept.
Felt disagreement is the villioque. As we said in the first video, all Christians believe in the Trinity, which is that the three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, which means they all have everything that makes God God.
So he doesn't even know what monarchical trinitarianism is. He doesn't even know that that's the view that's established at the Second Ecumenical Council, which is the official Church's Trinity Council. So he didn't even know that.
But if they all have the same.
I think I brought all this up in our debate by look.
In properties, then what makes them different from each other?
The free person, Hey, Jamie, could you make me a coffee? Could you put a little Manuka honey in it? Thank you? I got a cup in here.
Those are only different from each other in their relations to each other.
So what are these yeah? And so if they're only different by relation, then the thing that makes them distinct isn't anything unique. And so this is one of the crit that Lasky has of Western trinitarianism so called, which is that person reduces to a relation. But Eastern theology is premised on the idea that persona is persona at relatio is false. Person cannot be identified with a relation,
person is subject or agent. And and I brought this up in our debate, and he was completely lost, by the way, so none of what I said apparently stuck sunk in from our debate. And he's just sort of look at and what does all this? It looks like a freaking football team's you know, is he like Rudy over here? He's drawing the plays of the West, you know, Like I don't know, I mean, I hate football movies, but the Rudy is the only one I can even
think of that I've ever watched. Right, So he's over here like Rudy, trying to trying to rally his team, drawing, drawing the Trinity and the philioquis someone of confused ass gibberish football play relations.
According to the West, the Son is eternally generated from the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son or philioque in Latin.
Notice we haven't had any so far as just saying positions, no arguments yet.
But according to the East, the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father and not the Son. The first question should be what does the Bible say. The Bible very clearly says the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of the Father is also the spirit of the.
Son or so level one mistakes. He doesn't understand the difference between economia and theology proper, or the intratrinitarian life versus the economia. So doesn't even know that, not even a level one understanding of what the Phillioquay issue is.
The spirit of Christ. Many many times it says the Holy Spirit is from the Son or of the Son.
Yeah, nobody in the Orthodox Church disagrees with that. That was never even part of the debate.
That should settle it.
But still the East, I mean literally doesn't even know the issue it.
This is the West of adding the Opate to the Nicene Creed when it wasn't there before.
And we don't accuse the West of doing it. The West admits to doing it, and pote Leo the third forbade it from being added. So that's again, it doesn't even know basic history.
This is technically true, but it kind of doesn't matter because neither of them use the original version of the Nicene Creed.
Yeah, but the argument isn't that we only follow the creed as it's produced at Nicea. The argument is that Constantinapolitan creed, the Niceno concept of Politan creed is forbidden at Ephesus from being added to. So the clause that you and then Chalcedon, right, So Ephysis and Chalcedon are the ones that say that you can't alter the creed. It's not nicea one that says the creed can't be changed.
So this is misunderstanding. This is an old, a stupid old argument to Bara made that he didn't even realize that it's not Nicea that forbids the change the changes forbidden after it's already been.
Changed, which didn't have the paragraph about the Holy Spirit.
All of this is like level literally level one oh one mistakes.
So both of them use an updated version. It's just that the Western version is slightly more updated. And just because the original Creed didn't have the philioquay doesn't mean people didn't believe in the philioquay back then.
Actually it does. Because number one, he doesn't even understand what the issue is. It's about the hypostatic properties, and whether the father is the sole cause hence monarchical trinitarianism as taught by the Cappadocians, and whether or not the hypesech property of the father can be shared, given to, or in any way participated in by the son.
That's the issue, especially because so many of the most important people that we talked about in the previous videos did believe in it. Some of the greatest defenders of true teaching, like Saint Athanasius sant.
Anthonasia doesn't believe in the Philioquay. This is easily debunked in Sishchensky's book. Really the only there's one quote in Ambrose that could be read as Philioquay and then Saint Augustine. So for the West, that's it. We did a whole live stream with doctor Branson who did his dissertation on the cab of Doceans and uh, there's one phrase in
Nissa's against Eunomius that's used as a proof text. But as doctor Branson points out, that one phrase in against Eunomius goes against the rest of the thrust of the text, and because it's an ambiguous passage, it makes more sense to interpret the one phrase in Nissa's text in harmony with the rest of the texts that are a lot clearer, where he specifies that there's only one sole cause, and that is the hypostasis of the Father. It's not the
divine nature. So you can refer back to the three hour livestream that we did going through the entire Skshensky book on the Philly oquay, which is the most up to date academic text on it from a person who was rom Macalo that became Orthodox, And you can also go watch the recent Doctor Branson stream that we did where we dove deep into these topics as well, leaving essentially no argumentation for the Philly equali other than Augustine. That's it.
The spirit is from the son.
Oh wait, we don't go by one guy, So for perfectly a Protestant mindset that, oh, where do I get my canon? I'll pick Jerome one guy. Where do I get my trinity doctrine? All Augustine? One guy? Yeah, it's the Constantinopolitan council, the second echemical council that trumps any single dude way.
The son is from the Father or Saint Cyril of Alexandria, explicitly saying the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, if you read the rest of Cyril, and if you read the treatment that Sashinsky says, this is not what he's talking about. The procession is what he's talking about. Just because the word proceeds is used, that just means come forth, So it's not always in the English translation identical to hypostatic origin. So we agree that the manifestation of the spirit and the energies is through the son, right, and that's taught by gregor Cyprus. That's at the the
later Palomize synods. You could read Crisis and Byzantium by Papadoccus on that. But just because you see the word proceeds, you notice that he did the same thing with the biblical texts right, comes from the Sun, Yeah, but in what sense comes from the sun in terms of manifestation, proceeding forth through manifestation or a proceeding forth as hypostetic origin. You see, those are two different things.
Ads from the Father and the son. Or Pope Leo also saying the spirit proceeds from the Father, and he's saying the Holy Spirit.
By the way, if you notice that text right there, the Holy Spirit when he is in us right comes from father and son. That's economium. So even the text that he's got right, there is an economic relation and not a eternal hyposthetic origin.
Relation proceeds from the father and the son, or Pope Leo also saying the spirit proceeds from the father and the son.
Yeah, this is also dealt with in the Sashensky books. So this is why it doesn't work to do quote minds to prove this kind of stuff. It's basically just ignoring all of the scholarship that ex lanes to you the difference between hyposthetic origin and manifestation, which is necessary to have a coherent doctrine eternity. By the way, Romancolics typically don't even know this or understand this unless they
happen to be kind of brainiac uniates. Really, brainiac uniates are the only ones that are even kind of aware of this. But it's actually brought up by the way in the Vatican clarificational.
Opilioqui both sides recognize these people as the heroes of the early Church. Now the East response to this by saying the Bible and the Church fathers are only talking about energetic procession, not hypostatic procession.
No, actually, you already confused economia with intratrinitarian life and origin, so we don't just say that it's that.
So you misunderstood that partly because they think there's a difference between God's essence and God's energies. But that creates a whole.
Yeah, that actually comes from the Bible. Right, So Paul makes this distinction when he talks about the energies of the spirit. Right, we have this when we talk when we read about the seven spirits of God. Okay, do you think God's knowledge, God's wisdom, et cetera. Are they creatures or are they really distinct things. I'm pretty sure foreign knowledge is different from the divine essence. I'm pretty sure the act of creating is different from the act of destroying the world.
New set of problems that we're going to talk about later. Also, in the Eastern view, you can't really tell what the difference between the son and the spirit is because they're both just from the Father.
Yeah, maybe you should read the Cappadocians who actually address that. Youuno me an argument directly because you know meus Again, he was talking about reducing hypostidic properties to essence, and Basil's response is that that there is a distinction between procession and generation. We know what the distinction is, we do not know. That's a Cappadocian quote. Those are the guys who gave us the doction of the Trinity at the Second Acimunical Council. So this guy's no knowledge of any of this.
We'll say the difference is because the sun is from them, not even aware of the basics, other by be getting in the spirit by procession. And if you ask what the difference between those two things are, they'll say, we know there is a difference, but it's a mystery.
That's Basil's quote. There is the guy who's like the daddy of the Trinity, next s Athanasius and the other Capitotion's so he doesn't even know he's like. What he's arguing against is what Basil says of mystery.
Another thing they disagree on is reason the Bible calls Christ the Logos or the Wisdom of God. Both sides agree on that. Both sides also agree that all Christians have the Holy Spirit, but because the West believes the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ, therefore proceeds from the wisdom of God. That implies that Christians have access to the wisdom of God and therefore can gain knowledge of God. This is why Western Christianity is more intellect.
Cat that makes no sense. So he thinks that because Christ is the logos, that this somehow translates to the huge He doesn't even know what faculties are like. He doesn't know that reason can be spoken of as a faculty that we possess as part of our human nature, and that the divine mind possesses reason as well, the church fathers argue, so he's equivocating on reason as if this is somehow necessary and connected to phillyoque literally no idea.
What this is a ridiculous Sorry, I've never heard. This makes no sense. It's just equivocating on terms.
That implies that Christians have access to the wisdom of God and therefore can gain knowledge of God. This is why Western Christianity is more intellectual and Eastern Christianity is more But.
It's not though, And if you read Singeria Palomas, the point of intellect and concepts is fine as far as it goes. But God is not in your intellect and God is not your concept. God is beyond all intellect and concepts, and so the direct experience of God transcends the creaturely things. That doesn't mean the creaturely things are bad. It just means that they're limited. In the West you get this idealization and idolatry of intellect and ideas because
they actually identify the soul with the intellect. So again, I don't even think I don't think he really understands what he doesn't know the difference between reasoning as a faculty, reasoning as an action or a function, and what it even means to call reason a property or a faculty of.
Nature mystical because they have different views of reason. This is not an insult. Prominent Orthodox priests will agree with this right after the fact.
That reasoning can lead us away from God does not mean that reasoning is bad or that we're anti intellectual. So this is another straw man, as if because Father Josiah Trendum is talking about rationalism that he doesn't does redeem him or not know the difference between reason as a faculty or a function and rationalism as an intellectual movement of the Enlightenment. No, he doesn't even know that.
The split the West started doing scholasticism, which is where they study theology academically and try to learn the mysteries about God. Saint Anselm was one of the most important Western saints after the split, and he started medieval scholasticism. He said that theology.
He's not actually started by Anselm, it's actually Augustine and Boethius. But the problem is not So there's another word, concept fallacy, Like the problem is not being scholastic. The problem is scholasticism, which is built on a bunch of faulty presuppositions. So another word concept fallacy. That he doesn't know the difference.
He doesn't know the difference between reason and rationalism. He doesn't know the difference between being scholastic and scholasticism, because if he were to read the medieval Byzantine theologians, they were super scholastic.
His faith seeking understanding, and he started to find out new ways to prove that God exists. The medieval scholastics spent centuries trying to figure out everything, like how do we define what God is? Anselm says, God is the thing. You can't think of anything greater than Thomas Aquina says, God is pure being. Dun Scotis says God is the infinite and these ideas don't necessarily contradict each other, and Reform theology was greatly.
I don't understand why he's apt to point out people that he thinks are actually heretics. I mean, these are people that number one reject him un totally think he's heretical. He thinks these people are heretical. But leave it to the Reform to be inconsistent and roll these people out when they think they're useful for optics reasons.
Influenced by these theologians, All these people thought the philioque is necessary for understanding God.
So what we also don't think that those people are saints in our church. So what would this have to do with disproving the Orthodox position unless you're just trying to score points on the ideas that there's a generic Western theology of God that's correct. Do you think that John Calvin's theology is anywhere close to Thomas Aquinas? Do you think that Anselm's theology is anywhere close to I don't know, Zwingli. I mean, give me a break, right, So this is all optics and like ignoring the big
issues that these people killed each other. They're not in agreement. Literally, Protestants killed themselves amongst other Protestants over baptism. Roman Catholics killed Protestants obviously, So this idea that there's a generic commonality between them that he could somehow utilize against Orthodoxiology is just like super low dear.
And studying God led to studying God's creation by doing science. That's why it was the Western Church that created modern science, modern universities, classical.
Music, and actually universities come out of Byzantium. Okay, it's not a creation of the West, so ignorant of Byzantium modern science, I don't mean modern scientism. I mean that seems like a double edged sword there, so I'm not sure. But to attribute this to I mean, is this admitting then that Roman Catholicism is the real So I mean, if he's gonna argue that Western that all this Western stuff comes out of the Middle Ages, then this is
actually undercutting his dumb reform position. So uh oh, it looks like modern science universities come out of Rome and not the Protestant world. So that's actually an own against himself. And by the way, university has come out of Byzantium, not whatever he thinks to come out.
Of Western civilization itself the most successful civilization to ever exist.
Well, how do you measure success? Right? I mean, is the success of Western civilization quote unquote measured by bodily comforts? Is it measured by nuclear weapons? Is it measured by how apostate and atheist it is? Now, so you see how arbitrary and ridiculous this kind of argumentation is.
Western theology is whether they like Augustin, who was one of the most important Church fathers, and it shouldn't surprise you that he very strongly believed in the philiop way.
He also Yeah, but nobody, not even you as a Protestant, follows one dude, right, I mean, nobody consistently follows one dude. Now, the Romancalolic Church supposedly follows one dude aka Francis, but they don't consistently do that. As we'll see here in a second. You don't follow one dude. So when you try to find evidence for your positions in the Church fathers, it's completely arbitrary. Oh, I want the canon that Jerome has.
Oh I want the theology of Jesus that Athanasius has and then you think the rest of his beliefs are heretical. By the way, no Roman Catholic person wouldever accept your belief that Augustine is a Protestant. Have you read Augustine. I don't just mean your quote minds. I mean I've read thousands of pages of Augustine. He was a Catholic bishop. Now, for us, we think that individual theologians can make mistakes. Gregor Nissa made mistakes, Saint Maximus made mistakes, Augustine made mistakes.
Tertullian made mistakes. Some mistakes can be so severe that eventually the church determines that you're outside the church. Like in the case of Turtullian, he left the church. Right, You could argue that Justin Marty made a mistake in the way he phrased things here and there. Sure, but he could also be read in an Orthodox way. Now I want tomind everybody too that IP is inspiring. Philosophy
is doing a stream. Later, addressing one of Jake's claims about Tertolian being not a Trinitarian, Sam Schmun also addressed this, it's a dumb argument. It's actually missing the whole point. But anyway, let's get back.
To this believed in original sin, which says that because of the fall, all of us are dead in sin from the moment of conception. Now our default state is guilty before God.
That mean, now, I guess redeem Zoomer is not even aware of the Roman Catholic position, is not the Augustinian position? Does he not know this? And you could go read the for example, well you'd read the Catholic Catechism where it makes a distinction between original guilt and actual guilt. Roman Catholics no longer affirm original guilt. Infants are not guilty because of adam sin. So that's actually something that
we agree with in terms of Rome in the Orthodox. Now, at the time of Augustine, up until Gregory the Great, the West did believe that infants were guilty and that all men were guilty in Adam as in an archetype. And that's the argumentation that Augustin uses in the City of God, for example, in one place where he makes this argument. And so he has a neoplatonic idea that everyone is guilty because we're all in potentia in Adam as in an archetype, and so we are all already
guilty because we exist in potentia in him. Eventually, when the Romancolic Church defines and explains the doctrine of infant limbo, this is precisely to get around the fact that infants are not guilty of Adam's sin itself. So actually Rome eventually softens their position and moves away from original guilt. Now you could argue that Romancalolay Church is inconsistent with which I do argue that in my essay against Taylor
Marshall on this position. But the modern day Roman Catholic Church does not agree with the reformed Calvinist position that infants are automatically damned merely by being children about him. So the only people today that still hold to the Augustinian position are Calvinists. So if he wants to claim Augustine, he could claim him just in that specific area and maybe on absolute predestination. But he doesn't even know that the Roman Catholic position is not his position on inherited guilt.
It's from the moment we were conceived, we deserve to go to hell. It's not a pretty truth, but it's what the Bible teaches.
It doesn't teach that that's your misinterpretation and Meandorff has a good essay pointing out where because Augustine didn't know the Greek, he misunderstood Romans five.
It's very important to recognize how serious sin.
By the way, if you want to go deeper into that, I have an entire three hour discussion from Augustine proving all these points. Okay, so I'm sure a lot of people are gonna be like, ooh, ooh, look, I will walk you through Augustine's errors and his texts in great detail in this open Q and A that we did right here. It's called Augustine Calvin Original Sin Orthodox Theology. So you can go watch this stream. I'll put it
in the chat right here. And this addresses in detail the basic mistakes and fundamental errors that reform Zoomer is not even aware of in it that he's engaging in.
And it is so we recognize how much we depend on God.
I'm must get past this part to the next point.
Well, Eastern Orthodox, he tends to lean a bit more in the direction of Pelagius, which is why the West has.
Do not even Palagianism. It's like, so, if he understood the Roman Calolk position. He would call it Pelagian or semi pelagius. He doesn't even he doesn't even know what he thinks that. The only position that's not semi palagian is if you believe in here to guilt the sinner.
But the East doesn't really believe that. Here's another on the East and West disagree on God. The West has a more strict monotheism because it believes that what God is is one thing. Yes, God is three persons, but here we're talking about God's essence absolute divine. Simplicity means God's essence or what God is is the same as God's attributes or the things about God, and simplicity just means that God is not made of parts. So God's power, in God's mind and God's love are not parts of God.
They are the same as God. So when the Bible says God is love, we take that literally, meaning that God is the same as infinite love. The Eastern view is completely different. The East believes that the things about God, like love and power and justice are just energies that come from God, and God could.
Refer to Of course, I'm not going to rehearse that. We probably respond to this five hundred times. So I've been making videos about the energies for over ten years. And here is the doctor bo Branson's lectures right here. If you want to learn what monarchical trinitarianism is from doctor Branson, who we just had on discussing this not too long ago. Here's a great link right there for
his lectures. So doctor Branson gives you one, two, three, four, five, five lectures on what monarchical trinitarianism is, and then it's the only real consistent way to rebut the Islamic argument of monotheism, especially when we look at the text where Jesus is referring to the Father is greater than I. Of course it doesn't mean ontologically greater, it means greater in role. So there is doctor avail yourself of doctor
Branson's lectures. I highly recommend it. And again he should have he should have looked at some of this stuff before making this video, because it really just comes out looking like a shoddy, corny like level one attempt to explain the differences without even understanding really what the other positions are. So there's brand doctor Branson's talks. Uh did I put my talk on Augustine in there. I can't remember if I did it here it is if I didn't.
So because we've refuted and because we've answered the energies stuff probably literally five hundred times, I'm not going to repeat all of that. Let's see what he says about theosis.
Of God's energies. And because God's energies are also called God in some sense, we become God in the end. Now, the West also believes in theosis. The West also believes that we receive love and immortality from God when we have eternal life. The difference is the West knows that these are gifts that God created for us.
But yeah, so as Paloma says, if we just get another creature, then we are no different than the Arians. So here he's admitting that his position of created grace is where it is created grace, and so therefore the arguments of Athenasius. He claims to really like Athenasianus. But Athenasius said that if we're getting in salvation just another creature,
then the Arians are correct. So he doesn't even understand that he should go read a dialogue between Orthodox and a barling mine to to understand.
From God whereas the East thinks of salvation.
Salvation is a gift of God's grace. He thinks that's Augustinianism. Actually, Augustine teaches a cooperative grace. So even Augustine believes that the will is still present in the human being, and the will is still cooperating. Augustin believes in merits. Right, if you read his books, he actually writes about merit. Okay, he has works on grace and merit, and he doesn't deny merit. He wouldn't be a Roman Catholic saint if he completely denied all merit. And he says, well, the
merits are still gifts of God's grace. Okay, Well I can agree with that. My mouse just died. So again it's word concept fallacies because it depends on what you mean, right, I mean, I can I can believe that my own, my own human energy and will that I have by nature, that i'd cooperate with grace in is also a gift. Sure, So again it's a lot of equivocating that he's in God.
So according to the West, all you have to do to be saved is accept God's grace, even though different westnes.
So he just refuted his own position here by the way, he didn't even understand that this would be a created This would be a crystological heresy too, because if Christ, in assuming human nature, didn't do anything but make another created human nature, or that the grace that he gave to his human nature and the incarnation a lah the Sixth Council, If it's just another creature, then and again he's back at Arianism. So he doesn't even Understandsians.
Might disagree on how to receive God's grace, but in the East, there's no way to know if you're united enough to God have assurance of salvation. We can know that we are in Christ.
Okay, so you can pause it that there is theoretically an assurance of salvation like once Saved always said or whatever.
But the funny thing about all that is that none of that actually because even in his position as a Calvinist, right, if there's self deception and Calvinists believe that you're self deceiving yourself all the time because the no edic effects of sin are affecting you at all times, then there's no way for him as an individual to know that he's not being self deceived into thinking that he's want of the elects. This alone refutes the notion of assurance of salvation amongst Calvinists.
But the East prefers to say things, our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was on him.
Yeah, this is all again word concept fallacy, assuming that post Enlightenment ideas about not nominalism and legal standing and divorcing ontology from legality and from propositions, which is a post Enlightenment development, that that's all read back into Isaiah and ancient text. Now, the ancient world and the medieval world never separated ontology from nominalism from naming. Okay, So there's no such thing as a purely legal status that
doesn't affect your ontology. But if that, if that goes away, then all Reformation theology goes away, because that's what p s A is built on. Penal substitution or tone is built on the post Enlightenment noomalist idea that you can divorce metaphysics from uh naming and legal status. So he's just reading in post Enlightenment presubsositions, posts Reformation and presubsitions back into Isaiah.
And by his wounds we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray. Jesus's sacrifice takes away our legal penalty.
So again, what does that mean? Okay, it's not a question of can you find a quote, because this is the same goofy debate that every reform person, for example, engages when engaged them when they say, for example, oh, well, the church fathers talk about the importance of scripture, therefore solo scriptura. Oh Athanasia is talking about sacrifice, so therefore he means the post Enlightenment ideas of nominalism and pure legal status. No, he doesn't, And if you were to
read Athenasius you would actually know that. By the way, Protestant scholars already written books on this Eustacia Day by Alisterroir McGrath points out that nobody prior to Luthor had Luther's ideal of justification by faith alone. So even your own Protestant scholars admit this. But he's what twenty one twenty two, He doesn't even.
Know the East rejects original guilt. The Reform tradition is very intellectual, so we're not a bit But.
I guess what, let's just cut this out right away. We could just really emphasize let's use philosophy to make this really simple. If total depravity is true, and if the noetic effects of sin are affecting you at all times, and that includes in or rational theological discourse and your interpretation of scripture, then you're also in every case denying the possibility of having the certitude that you claim to have.
So every time you're reading the Bible, every time you're reading the text, reading the Church Fathers, the noetic effects of sin are distorting what you're doing, and every act you're actually engaging in some degree of sin on your own view, right, every act is in some way affected
by noetically in total depravity, the effects of sin. So that would actually undercut and cancel out the possibility for him to have the certitude that he has, not just on his supposed doctrine of assurance of salvation, but also on every text that he reads. Every time he tries to go to the Bible, the noedic effects of sin are messing with his interpretation, and so he could never get to the true meaning of the text itself, which
is what his whole religion is based on. Solar scripture, that alone is enough to cut out all of this word concept felacy, goofy position so as we expected. I had not seen this video before playing it with you guys. It was actually worse than I expected. Super low tier multiple word concept fallacies. Lack of familiarity with basic distinctions between the intratrinitarian life and economyia when it came to Philly Oquay. Lack of basic understanding of the actual debate
of the history of Philioquay. Lack of familiarity with the basic academic sources on the Philly Oquay A. La Sashensky and others. Lack of basic understanding of what the disputes were between Roman Catholics and Protestants, assuming that Augustine is somehow a useful person for Protestants, which is preposterous, assuming that Roman Catholics and Protestants have the same doctrine of
original guilt. They don't. So again, multiple fundamental mistakes. And you know, Redeemed Zuomer got really upset over our debate for whatever reason, and so it looks like he's just spiraling and doing damage control.