Jay Dyer vs Crazy Protestants and Inquirers Discord Open Forum

Summary

---

Jay'sAnalysis Podcast

Episode: Jay Dyer vs Crazy Protestants and Inquirers Discord Open Forum
Date: March 1, 2026
Host: Jay Dyer
Format: Discord Q&A Open Forum

Overview

This episode features Jay Dyer, Orthodox theologian and author, leading a Discord-based open forum Q&A. Listeners—ranging from Protestants to Muslims to Orthodox inquirers—present challenging questions on theology, philosophy, church history, and Christian doctrine, especially those that highlight debated issues between Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant perspectives. The episode is intellectually rigorous but often features Jay’s playful, sometimes acerbic wit, with help from regular commentators such as Snack and guests like Odin Benitez.

---

Table of Contents

1. Trinity, Pure Act, and Divine Simplicity
2. Trinitarian Actions, Modes, and Scriptural Interpretation
3. Planes of Trinitarian Theology & The Filioque
4. Salvation, Knowledge, and "Separated Brethren"
5. Christology: “Thine Own of Thine Own” in Liturgy
6. Open Forum: Converts, Apologetics, and Veganism
7. Iconography & Patristic Texts
8. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

---

1. Trinity, Pure Act, and Divine Simplicity

Main Discussion:
A recurring and central theme is the philosophical notion of God as "Pure Act" (actus purus), its implications for the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Orthodox-Catholic differences.

• Jay explains Aristotle's view that the divine "pure act" always requires something external to actualize, which, in Orthodox theology, leads to problems—especially when borrowed uncritically by Catholic Thomism.

  “Aristotle believes that the first cause is a first actualizer. He's pure energy, pure action. So there's always something other than himself.” (02:00)

• Orthodox Critique: The Cappadocians (like Basil) reject strict identification between God's essence and pure act.

  “In Roman Catholic theology, God has absolutely no potentia... That's why Basil says in Hexameron 2 that Aristotle's argument is stupid. Because if God is an eternal actualizer as a first principle, then he must have a second principle that he always actualizes. So Basil says, well, that's basically a two-headed God.” (03:31)

• Problems for Incarnation: If God is pure act in essence, distinctions in the Trinity (especially how the Son becomes incarnate and not the Father or Spirit) cannot be maintained coherently.

  “The problem is with the doctrine of simplicity and then with the doctrine of pure act, they're defining God in essence as pure act. St. Maximus does not define God in his Essence as pure act. He defines God pure act in contrast to creatures. But in essence we do not know what he is.” (05:08)

Key Insight:
Orthodoxy insists on real (not merely nominal or conceptual) distinctions within God, grounding them in the persons and their actions, rather than collapsing them into essence as pure act.

---

2. Trinitarian Actions, Modes, and Scriptural Interpretation

Scriptural Case Study:
Discussion on Mark 1:9-11 (The Baptism of Christ) about how the voice of the Father and descent of the Spirit relate to the Word being present.

• Father Deacon & Jay:
  • The Father speaking is not precluded by the Son being the Word; actions and speech can be appropriated distinctly by the persons.
  • Each divine action (creation, sanctification) is shared by all three but actualized with unique roles (Father as origin, Son as mediator, Spirit as perfecter).
  • The concept of "perichoresis": the mutual indwelling or interplay (“inner dance”) of the Trinity, sharing the divine will but enacting it in diverse "modes".

“So every energy of God is common to all three persons. However, the persons have a unique mode or tropos by which they manifest that energy...” (12:08)

Memorable Explanation:
Jay breaks down patristic triadology:

“Person answers the question of who, nature answers the question of what, and mode answers the question of how a thing is.” (14:36)

---

3. Planes of Trinitarian Theology & The Filioque

Orthodox vs. Catholic Distinctions:
Jay, referencing Gregory Palamas, explains the “three planes”:

1. Hypostatic Origin: Father as sole cause/origin of Son and Spirit.
2. Energetic Manifestation: The divine energies/actions distinct from hypostatic origins (key in Orthodox rejection of the Filioque).
3. Economic Procession: How Trinity is revealed in salvation history (redemption, etc).

“Crucial to understanding orthodox trinitarian theology is these three planes... The Father is the sole cause... energetic manifestation... economic procession... Palamas uses the phrase planes of existence in the Trinity...” (17:35-19:34)

Filioque Error:
Roman Catholic confusion arises from collapsing the planes, especially energetic manifestation and hypostatic origin.

“That's why they believe in filioque. They don't have this level of distinction that we possess where we distinguish [energetic] procession from hypostatic origin.” (18:55)

---

4. Salvation, Knowledge, and “Separated Brethren”

Can you know God exists without the Bible? (22:34)

• Jay:
  • Intuitive/natural knowledge of God is possible (Romans 1), but rational deduction isn't enough; Orthodox theology remains skeptical of "natural theology" on its own.

Is full knowledge of the Trinity required for salvation? (23:23)

• Jay:
  • No—salvation is not for theologians alone; God judges based on what's given to each.

  “I'm sure there will be plenty of slow boys who are saved and plenty of theologians who are damned... To whom much is given, much is required.” (23:32)

“Separated brethren” terminology explained (49:39, 53:48)

• Not all errors are heresy by obstinacy; Orthodox avoid judging individual hearts but call all to Orthodoxy.

“A heretic is not somebody just, just wrong. Because we're all wrong. ... The sin of heresy and the sin of schism are sins of obstinacy, will and knowledge.” (50:00)

• Misused by modern ecumenists; historically, this term did not mean heresy was excusable or no longer relevant.

---

5. Christology: “Thine Own of Thine Own” in Liturgy

Byzantine Eucharistic Theology (27:20-36:34)

• Liturgical Debate:
  • The meaning of “Thine own of thine own we offer to thee” in the liturgy resolves Christological questions about who offers and who receives the Eucharistic sacrifice.
  • Deacon Sotirikos argued that Christ could not offer to the Trinity, or this would split Christ’s actions into human (offering) and divine (receiving).
  • The Orthodox response: Hypostatic union means the Divine Son can perform a human action (offering), but there is no separate human subject; Christ is both the offerer and receiver.

“The hypostatic union is precisely what permits one to consider God as performing humanly the action of offering... So it's that he entered into the mode of humanity. It's not a human person offering, it's the Divine Son offering to humanity... he is the offerer and the receiver.” (34:49-35:33)

• Jay's takeaway:
  • This theology undermines the Protestant view of the Eucharist as a merely juridical exchange.

---

6. Open Forum: Converts, Apologetics, and Veganism

Notable Conversions and Guest Testimonies

• Odin Benitez, Hollywood editor, shares how his journey through Catholic, Baptist, and Gnostic paths, coupled with the study of Byzantine history and Jay’s work, brought him to Orthodoxy.

  “... for me, this is sort of like, it’s almost like providence. … I’m making my way through Byzantine theology…” (41:16-42:16)

Defending Orthodoxy vs. Postmodernism (45:15)

• Jay:
  • Rebuts postmodernists like Umberto Eco and Derrida, noting their open battle against the very category of "truth."

“The real battle and goal of the leftist is against truth, which is fascism in essence. So any notion that there’s truth, Echo says is fascism... Our battle is against truth itself.” (45:35-47:00)

Ethics of Veganism (55:47-59:44)

• Question: Did Adam and Eve eat meat?
• Jay:
  • In Edenic state, no meat was eaten; allowance came with Noah post-flood.
  • Enforced vegan/vegetarian ethics are consistently condemned by Church Fathers; veganism is an ethical, not dietary, position.

“The vegans are telling you that you have to be vegan... because veganism is an ethical position, not a dietary position.” (59:44)

Eating Blood and Cooking Food (59:51-61:57)

• Jay and Snack discuss Acts 15 and the tradition against consuming blood, and how some ascetic and liturgical traditions regard the cooking of food.

---

7. Iconography & Patristic Texts

Disputes Over Patristic Authorship (62:54-66:54)

• Reformed Protestants challenge the authenticity of some of St. Basil’s letters that support iconography.
• Jay & Snack:
  • The doctrine does not rest on any single letter’s authenticity; the principle of icon veneration is rooted in Christological and Trinitarian theology developed and codified at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

“Our argument for, and belief in iconography doesn’t hinge on a letter from Basil … the basis is the Incarnation, the real presence in the Eucharist, sacramentalism...” (63:56-64:30)

---

8. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Thomism & Pure Act:

  "Thomism is a broken dead end system. ... Instead of going towards orthodoxy ... Eco said, no, I’m going to go the demon satanic route, like literal Satanism.” (45:35)

• On Three Planes of the Trinity:

  “The Palamite Synods Clarify ... the plane of hypostatic origins is distinct from the plane of energetic procession distinct from the plane of economia.” (15:30)

• On Heresy and Salvation:

  “There will be plenty of slow boys who are saved and plenty of theologians who are damned.” (23:32)

• On Veganism as Heresy:

  “The Ebionites, the Pythagoreans... enforced vegetarianism. It's unanimously, consistently condemned by the Church fathers across the board.” (58:37)

• Spirited Exchanges:

  • Jay, dealing with a troll:

    “Nobody cares about your channel and your exposes. Do you have an argument?” (25:39)

  • Jay, on forum technical failures:

    “Our discord has the amazing power to completely obliterate every microphone.” (24:34)

• On the Mystery of Judgment:

  “There’s a reason why God doesn’t tell us everything. So I’m perfectly fine with, like, I don’t know what happens to the guy who dies in...the pagan island, who never heard the gospel…” (54:53)

---

Segment Timestamps

• (01:23–08:01): Trinity, Pure Act, and Divine Simplicity
• (10:30–15:30): Trinitarian Actions, Scriptural Q&A, Modes
• (17:35–23:00): Three Planes of Trinitarian Theology, Filioque Debate
• (22:34–24:29): Q&A – Faith, Salvation, Knowledge of God
• (27:20–36:36): Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy – Christology Debate
• (39:16–43:42): Guest Convert Testimonies (Odin Benitez)
• (45:15–49:37): Apologetics: Postmodernism, Umberto Eco, Truth
• (49:39–54:53): “Separated Brethren,” Heresy, and Salvation
• (55:47–61:57): Veganism, Blood, and Food in Christian Ethics
• (62:54–66:54): Iconography, Patristics, and Church Authority

---

Tone and Style

• Highly intellectual but accessible; Jay uses informal, sometimes sarcastic humor to defuse tension and highlight absurdity in some arguments.
• Open to complex questions, relishes deep dives into patristic and philosophical sources.
• Firm Orthodox apologetic stance, critical of both Roman Catholic and Protestant positions, but with acknowledgment of intra-Orthodox diversity and pastoral mystery.

---

Summary

This episode provides a rich, freewheeling, and occasionally combative dive into Orthodox theology as it stands against both Protestant and Roman Catholic alternatives, with a recurring focus on the nature of God, the Trinity, Christology, and the lived existential and sacramental experience of the Church. Jay’s analysis emphasizes the precision of Orthodox distinctions, their implications for worship and doctrine, and a robust approach to dealing with both friendly and antagonistic challengers. The show blends rigorous patristic-philosophical debate with the warmth of testimony and the realities of online Christian discourse.

---

Transcript

[Inquirer]

Busted appliance.

[Advertiser]

This is your sign to upgrade shop at Lowe's to get up to 35%

[Inquirer]

off and next day delivery on hundreds of major appliances.

[Advertiser]

Lowe's we help you Save valid through 318 while supplies last selection varies by location.

[Inquirer]

Order by 4pm available Monday through Saturday

[Advertiser]

subject to availability fees, exclusions and restrictions apply. See Lowes.com appliancedelivery for more details.

[Inquirer]

Visit your nearby Lowes on Colorado street in Kennewick.

[Spinquest Promoter]

Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spinquest exclusives. Blackjack, roulette, baccarat, and even live dice. With craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to. And right now, new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free to

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. All right, so we have open forum if anybody would like to bring questions or Q A. Father Deacon and I and the other mods are here. So is anybody in the chat? Any challengers, Any questions? Any topics? Bring it forth. We're here. I even have my white boy whiteboard.

[Inquirer]

Right here. Right here.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Got my whiteboard.

[Inquirer]

I had a quick question. Someone mentioned on your last stream about God being pure act in the incarnation. How that it's. It's an issue. It's problematic. And you said that something along the lines of how if he's always actualizing everything and he's actualizing one hypostasis, why isn't he actualizing the other two, right?

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

Could.

[Inquirer]

So could a Roman Catholic counter that by saying that he can't actualize the other two because is logically impossible?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Now, the argument is not that he's actualizing other persons. The argument is that a being that is pure act has to have something other than himself or itself to actualize. That's what in Aristotle the word means. So Aristotle believes that the first cause is a first actualizer. He's pure energy, pure action. So there's always something other than himself. Now, the reason that we don't apply that argument necessarily, you could make an argument about generating of the sun, right? Because if God is pure act, then what is the distinction between generating and spirating? There would be a real distinction in the Trinity, right? But this is. This is just to speak of God in essence, definitionally God via substance as pure act. And the problem is that in Aristotelian philosophy, pure act means that he's eternally pure act. He's always pure act. To act means to actualize. He's not actualizing himself. So Aristotle said he's always actualizing the other something other than himself. So the argument is not about other persons. It could be, but it's not about that. It's about creation. Aristotle believes that there's an eternal prima materia, prime matter, that the first actualizer is eternally actualizing. Does that make sense?

[Inquirer]

Yes, because if that's what he is, by definition, he's gonna. It's gonna necessitate him actualizing something from all eternity, correct?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, yeah. So there's never a time when he wasn't actualizing creation and then he changed to become the actualizer of creation. That would mean. If that happened, that would mean he has potentia. And in Roman Catholic theology, in terms of especially Thomism, but generally speaking, in Roman Catholic theology, God has absolutely no potentia, no active or passive potentia in any sense at all. Period. That's why Basil says in Hexameron 2 that Aristotle's argument is stupid. Because if God is an eternal actualizer as a first principle, then he must have a second principle that he always actualizes. So there's a necessary relationship between the actualizer and what he actualizes. But between God and creation, that's an eternal creation. This is not my argument, it's just Basil's argument in Hexameron too. He says Aristotle's stupid because he has a dyad. So that's why it's two persons, is because the material world that the first actualizer is eternal actualizing is itself another eternal principle. So Basil says, well, that's basically a two headed God. Does that make sense?

[Inquirer]

Oh yeah, that makes sense. But I thought that the idea of him being pure act causes problems for the incarnation.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

I thought someone mentioned it does. Because how does one hypostasis enter into a mode of being that the other two do not?

[Inquirer]

Yeah, and that's where I was going to ask, could they counter that by saying that the other two can't enter into a mode of being because it's logically impossible or something?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Why would it be logically impossible for the Father and the Spirit to do it, but not the Son? I mean, I don't understand how that's even a coherent argument. It just sounds like it sounds like an ad hoc rescue. The problem is with the doctrine of simplicity and then with the doctrine of pure act, they're defining God in essence as pure act. St. Maximus does not define God in his Essence as pure act. He defines God pure act in contrast to creatures. But in essence we do not know what he is. So they collapse the two distinctions. They collapse economia into theology proper. Do you understand? Yes and yes. You could take the. Look, the pure act simplicity argument will apply to any level of distinctions in God if you wanted to. Right. So in other words, we could apply it to the distinction between generating a spirating. Is that a real distinction? Sure. Okay, then is it something that's in the essence? How is God pure act if there's two different things going on in God?

[Inquirer]

Right. And then their other doctrine of absolute divine simplicity probably doesn't even allow for distinction.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

What do you mean their other doctrine?

[Inquirer]

Well, if God is absolutely simple, how can he have distinctions within Himself?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Right, Right. So in other words, modal collapse argument does point out problems in any attempt to make distinctions in God that are only virtual, nominal or conceptual. The distinction between generating and spirating is not virtual. It's not nominal, it's not conceptual. It is, but it's, it's. You can conceptually distinguish because it's really distinguished. This is the whole paper cat Epanoia that Bradshaw has. So can we make a conceptual distinction between generating and spirating in our minds? Yes. How can we do that? Basil says because it's a real distinction. What your mind is predicating is predicating on the basis of what's really distinct. Because there is a real distinction between generating inspiring. You can really distinguish those things in your mind. And some distinctions are purely conceptual. Right. The distinction between bachelor and unmarried man is a conceptual distinction. There's not a real distinction in reality between those two things. Right. But in our mind we can distinguish them linguistically. But there is a real distinction between the sun and the spirit because there's a real distinction between generating and spirating. Okay, so is that an action of the essence or an action of the persons? Well, it's an action of the person of the Father. That's why you have to begin your trinitarian theology not with the essence of God, but with the person of the Father. And that's what the Cappadocians do.

[Advertiser]

So the rum Are you a fraud paying American? It's a fact that one in four honest, hard working, tax paying Americans has been a victim of identity theft with lifelock identity theft protection, though if your identity is stolen, they fix it guaranteed and get you your money back. Last year the IRS flagged over $16 billion in refunds for identity fraud. That's billions of dollars that could come from your salary, overtime or second job. But this year you don't need to stay a victim. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. And if your information does fall into the wrong hands only LifeLock has US based restoration specialists who are backed by the million dollar protection package. Because this tax season fraud paying American is something no American should have to claim. Visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iheart terms apply.

[Spinquest Promoter]

Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest. And there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.coms P-I-N q u-e s

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

t.com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Catholics just simply don't accept Constantinople 1 and the Cappadocian teaching. And they think they do. They can say all day long that they do, but in fact they don't. I'm almost done with this whole PhD thesis on that very topic.

[Inquirer]

Right.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Basil Caesarea, Gregory of Nessa and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity. The whole book, the whole PhD thesis is about the fact that the Cappadocian doctrine of divine simplicity and distinctions in the Trinity is different from the Augustinian Latin and Selmian Thomistic West. Well, yeah. I mean, why is this even controversial? It's like how many. I mean, we, we had medieval councils called the Palamite councils that already told us this a thousand years ago. So we shouldn't even have to debate this 800 years ago. Anyway, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Inquirer]

I know that was it. Thank you.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

All right, anybody else in Discord? Anybody else? Next up?

[Inquirer]

Yeah. Is it cool if I ask Father Deacon a question?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Absolutely.

[Inquirer]

Interpretation of Scripture real quick or is that. No. Okay. Father Deacon in. I'm a inquirer, by the way, so this is just a question. Oh, hi. In. In Mark 1:9 11, it says after the Christ is baptized. It says a voice came down from heaven. And I was just wondering if Jesus was the Word. I know that the Father was talking to him because it says the Spirit also descended upon him like a dove. So if. If Christ is the word, how was The Father talking to him, if that makes sense. So this is mark, mark 19 through 11. It's right after the Christ is baptized or when he's being baptized. Well, something that I actually say is, as far as I understood it, it was the Father who actually speaks.

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

Just because

[Inquirer]

Christ is the Word, I don't think that permits God the Father from speaking. So it's mark 1 9, 11. That was just kind of my question was that so the Father can speak. It's not only Christ who can speak from the heavens.

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

It's also a divine action. So it will be from the Father through the Son and the Spirit. And that's also maybe why all of them are present.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So one thing that is important to remember is that not every reference to an action is identical to a hypostasis. So sometimes the Scriptures speak of different actions, or they will refer to different persons of the Trinity under different energies or actions or attributes. For example, in Ezekiel, we saw the Son being referred to as the glory of God. Now, the person of the Son is not identical to the glory of God because the glory of God is something shared between Father, Son and Spirit. But the Son has a unique way or role or mode that he manifests the glory of God. And this is the doctrine of energetic manifestation or energetic procession. So every energy of God is common to all three persons. However, the persons have a unique mode or tropos by which they manifest that energy. So, for example, in creating, creating of the world is a unique trinitarian action. However, each person in the Trinity has a unique role in actualizing that action. So the Father is the origin of creation. The sun is the arche or principle through which creation comes to be. And the Spirit is the perfecter, the mover of the created order.

[Inquirer]

And like we have this word perichoresis, literally just it's like a inner dance, but it's a. The sharing of these actions of properties within the Trinity. Okay, so they all have the same will. They just have different modes of enacting that will, per se.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Correct?

[Inquirer]

Yeah. Okay, thanks, guys.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So just like in redemption, right? Redemption is a trinitarian work or action, but the persons have unique roles in the process or action of redeeming us. So for example, the Father's role is not to become incarnate. The Father's role is to send the Son, right? Jesus always refers to this, especially in the Gospel of John, right? The Father sent me, blah, blah, blah. The Son's role is to take on human nature, right? To become incarnate, and then The Spirit's role is to save, sanctify, deify, etc.

[Inquirer]

Okay, that makes perfect sense. Thank you.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah. So remember that role or mode is very, very important both to triadology and Christology. That's not modalism. Modalism is a triadological heresy that unite or that identifies all the persons. But tropos or mode is crucial to trinitarian and christological formulations because all mode is, is talking about how a thing is. So remember, that person answers the question of who, nature answers the question of what, and mode answers the question of how a thing is. So the mode of the Trinity is different in theology proper versus economia. This is why we don't. We don't read economia back into trinitarian

[Inquirer]

theology proper and all the modes just go back to. Right, it was created by the Father through the Son or I forget the saying, I'm new to the whole orthodox. Right.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So this comes from St. Basil. Basil's dictum is from the Father through the Son and in the Spirit. And that's a liturgical refrain that gets adopted and becomes kind of the norm for trinitarian formulations all the way up into St. Gregory Palomas in the Middle Ages. So basically nothing in trinitarian theology. After the second Ecumenical Council, everything's pretty much settled for the East. There's a little bit of debate in early Byzantium about trinitarian formulations, about the offering of the Son in the liturgy, Thine own of thy own. There's actually early Byzantine debate about that, what that means. But aside from that, up into the pal. Trinitarian theology doesn't get debated again or stated again until the Palamite Synods. And the Palamite Synods Clarify further post Constantinople 1 what the meaning of the plane of hypostatic origins is distinct from the plane of energetic procession distinct from the plane of economia.

[Spinquest Promoter]

I'm here with Spinquest where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now, $30 coin packs are on sale for $10 for new users. It's [e-mail] that's S-P-I-N Q U-T.com Spinquest

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Spinquest Promoter]

The sun shining, birds are singing and all feels right in the world until

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

the season changes and suddenly you lose your motivation to get out of bed.

[Advertiser]

In fact, one in five people experience some form of depression, no matter the season or time of year. At the American Psychiatric association foundation, our vision is to build a mentally healthy nation for all.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Because we want you to live your

[Spinquest Promoter]

best life and be your best you all year round.

[Advertiser]

Please visit mentallyhealthynation.org to learn more.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So crucial to understanding orthodox trinitarian theology is these three planes. P, L A N E Trinitarian existence or reality. This is from St. Gregory Palomas. The first plane is where we begin our trinitarian theology. Hypostatic origin, the person of the Father as the sole cause and the person of the Father is the sole cause of the generating of the Son and the spirating of the Spirit. That's the only way that we consistently through then a relation of origins, right? In relation to persons distinguish the trinitarian, the hypostasis of the Trinity. The second plane of trinitarian theology, which is not really present in Roman Catholic theology, is energetic manifestation. We have a crucial doctrine of the energies that is necessary 100% to our Trinitarian theology. This is one of the reasons why the Tomos and the Palmite synods of the Middle Ages reject filioque is because we do not collapse the things that we're saying about energetic manifestation into hypostatic origin. And the Roman Catholics do that. And that's why they believe in filioque. They don't have this level of distinction that we possess where we distinguish the eternal energetic procession or manifestation of the actions of God or the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son and the Spirit.

[Inquirer]

Right?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

That's distinct from hypostatic origin. And it's distinct. It's related to economic procession, but it's distinct from the economia. Then we have economic procession, the third level, right, of the role of the. Of the Son in creation and the role of the Holy Spirit in creation and economia. Trinity in time and space and history and redemption. You can't read that back into trinitary Trinity proper, meaning the first two layers, the first two planes. Palamas uses the phrase planes of existence in the Trinity. It's not saying that there's different trinities, it's just making distinctions in the Trinity.

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

By the way, that's a super stupid argument to say that economy needs to perfectly reflect theology.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Right?

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

Because otherwise there wouldn't be no economy and theology and everything you said like is actually straight from here and there. So that's from like second century.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, exactly. Good point.

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

So the idea of the Spirit, you know, being perfecter and stuff. This is, this is very early.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, I should add. It's. I didn't want to give the impression that Basil invented it. Basil just made it basically part of the liturgy. So,

[Inquirer]

so, and then the filioque just undercuts all three planes that Palomas presented. That's why we know that the filioque is.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Well, it doesn't undercut all of the three planes because most Roman Catholics at least make a distinction between theology, process, proper enicanomia. But they don't understand or typically see why we make a distinction between hypostatic origin and energetic manifestation. So they will say, look, filioque, when, when Basil, or when John Damascus, when they talk, or Athanasius, when they talk about the manifestation of the Spirit through the sun. That's no different than filioque. It all means the same thing. No, it doesn't. Because Roman Catholic theology does not have a clear energies doctrine. We do. You can see this in Athanasius. This is why I tell people ad nauseam to read the Florovsky paper on Athanasius and creation. Because Florovsky shows that Athanasius teaches the essence energy distinction. And one way he does that is to distinguish between things that God does in the intra trinitarian life. Right? Like generating a Son or manifesting his glory. And those are distinct from the actions that relate to the created order, like Providence or creating. Right. God is not eternally provident. He's eternally provident in the sense of having the potentiality or the power, but he's not eternally actualizing providence. This is. Again, we go back to the modal collapse problem. Right? If God is pure act, then is he eternally purely actualizing providence? Oh, okay. Well, then there's an eternal creation over which he's providential. But no Roman Catholic actually professes that. Right. So again, it's not. It's a little more nuanced than that. They're collapsing all of the three planes of existence in the Trinity into one. But they're confusing the first and second plane. And they don't see why there's a problem or why you need an energies doctrine. And they simply depart from the first seven councils. Because the seven councils hinge multiple arguments on the essence energy distinction. So their theology, their Trinitarian theology is all jacked up.

[Inquirer]

Up.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

That's the point.

[Inquirer]

Perfect. Thank you so much, man. Yes, sir, we do have a Muslim who said they asked to go soon. He had two quick questions he wanted to ask if we have time for that.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Okay, we'll do the Muslim, and then we'll do reformed Stoic, who's ready here to expose us all as KGB. So go ahead, Mr. Muslim.

[Inquirer]

That's Fred. Fred Douglas. Yeah.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

A Muslim named Frederick Douglas.

[Inquirer]

My question is real quick, just can you come to the conclusion that God, a God exists without using the Bible? That's one of my questions.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

In one sense, we would say that there is an inner intuitive sense that all men have, According to Romans 1, in their heart of hearts or their noose, that there is a God and that we have offended against him, and that we're guilty because we have the law of God on our heart. So that's what I think Paul is saying in Romans 1. But if you mean through rational deduction of looking at the natural world, do we do this natural theology exercise to getting back to a first cause? Some people might do that, but whether they can give an account for that is a different question. And I don't think they can. Okay, thank you.

[Inquirer]

My second question is, can you gain salvation without full knowledge of the Trinity in this day and age?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Well, we don't believe that, quote, full knowledge of the Trinity is a purely rational exercise. So it's not like you got to go get a THD to be saved because, you know, we believe that there's infants who are going to be saved. Right. This is partly why we baptize infants. And we don't think that everybody who is in the church has to attain, you know, a high level of intellectual capacity to be saved. I mean, you can have slow boys that get saved. I'm sure there will be plenty of slow boys who are saved and plenty of theologians who are damned. So there is, at least from God's perspective, I mean, and God knows this, you know, some degree of knowledge that is applicable to. To whom much is given, much is required is what the way I would put it. So when Jesus has asked this question, the Gospels, he kind of says, to the degree that you have been gifted, that is the degree to which you will have, you know, you will be judged on the basis of that requirement. Does that make sense?

[Inquirer]

Yeah. Don't get the mic.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Here we go. My mic's broken. Our discord has the amazing power to completely obliterate every microphone. Have you noticed that literally nobody's microphone works in our discord? And it's. It's purely a touch. Oh, here, you're here.

[Inquirer]

Let's go. Let's get it.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Jay.

[Inquirer]

Hey.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

I'm a big fan, by the way. First of all. Oh, yeah, I'll Bet you are. Sure.

[Inquirer]

And second of all, I never said anything about kgb. I just said CIA, bro.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, that was.

[Inquirer]

You're trying to group me in with other people.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

I'm. I'm a lone wolf. That was my. That was my joke.

[Inquirer]

Ever heard of Intrepid Corp. Lance Cattrell? I exposed them on my channel, man, he was dressing up like a mailman in my neighborhood. Isn't that nuts?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

All right. Are you a troll?

[Advertiser]

Are you.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Are you a troll? Are you here to debate? I don't know. I have no idea who you're talking. I don't know who you. I don't know who you are. I don't know what you're talking about. You. You can have an Israelite.

[Inquirer]

Well, you and Southern Israelite debated, correct? You do remember that, right?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah.

[Inquirer]

Oh, okay.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Well, I exposed him as a. I don't care who you've exposed. Do you have a topic to do? Nobody cares about your channel and your. Nobody cares about your channel and your exposes. Do you have an argument?

[Inquirer]

Well, that's not an argument. That's a deflection.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Do you have an argument?

[Inquirer]

Let's talk about CIA handlers, Jay. My argument is that you have CIA handlers.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

And where is the proof. Where is the proof of that?

[Inquirer]

They talk about people giving, like, a little bit of information and not really giving anything relevant to right now. That's exactly what your channel does, Jay.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So how is that a proof? That. How is that a proof?

[Inquirer]

Well, you. Well, here's a proof. You do not have to be orthodox to get saved. That's for sure. You just got to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

This guy is a fat or a troll. This guy's not even. Let's just. This guy's a troll. Just delete this guy. It's a total waste of time.

[Inquirer]

I'm a John 3:16 Christian.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Jay.

[Inquirer]

Let's get.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

He's laughing because he knows that what he's saying is disingenuous, is he can't even make an argument. A total waste of time. So there you go. That's the quality. The quality of our opponents is so low tier that all he can do is like, I don't even know what that was. Fed speak. Like, what was that?

[Inquirer]

Did anybody hear what church he was in?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

He's probably not even in a church, dude. That's probably not even. Total clown.

[Inquirer]

No, he said in my DMs. He said he's invisible. Church.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Just a total clown. Anyway, let's move on. Anybody have any good actual Arguments or positions that they want to put forward. We got a couple super chats. Bantu says, I just have a question.

[Inquirer]

Yeah. You know how you said there was a debate over thine own? Of thine own. Uhhuh. Could you say what the position was settled on, what that means?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

I brought it up with Seraphim. It's like the end of the. The second chapter in Meorf. So it's kind of a confusing thing. I'll get the book here in a second, but do you guys want to take over? I'm going to run to the little boys room.

[Inquirer]

So maybe we should just explain to people what that is. There's a part in the liturgy where the priest or the deacon holds up the chalice. In plate, Holy plate, it says, thine own, of thine own we offer to thee. Are you guys familiar with that part? On behalf of all and for all. Yeah.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

What's the.

[Inquirer]

But I'm not familiar about like what the. I have the mind or book. But what the debate is over, Lewis, you know. No, but I've always found it kind of like you could interpret that in so many different ways. Like it could just be about the elements, but it could also be about Christ. Like so the Son being the Father's own, being offered to the Father. That's probably what they settled on. But it's. Yeah, it's kind of like. It's kind of ambiguous. So I wanted to know what the elements, as far as the bread and

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

wine or like I got it right here. So there's.

[Inquirer]

Yeah, as in like it's God's creation that we're offering back to him, kind of thing. Like that's. That's the other thought I had me.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Well, it's either or too. It's the offering of the. Of the Son. So let me. Here's the debate and you'll see how it applies to refuting the Protestant purely juridical notion. So it's pages 39 and 40 of the minor book. So let me read this. It gets a little confusing. So let's see if we can parse this out. He says the very Karelian conclusion of the council against Eustrasius led to further christological debates which this time concerned the meaning of the Eucharistic sacrifice. The deacon Soterikos Pantogenos, the patriarch elect of Antioch, affirmed that the sacrifice of could not be offered to the Holy Trinity. For this would imply that 1. That the one Christ performs two opposing actions, the human action of offering, the divine action of receiving. And this would mean an historian separation and personalization of two natures. Okay, so we got that point that far, right?

[Inquirer]

Interesting.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

And then it goes on to say,

[Spinquest Promoter]

Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on Spin Quest. And there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get 30 coin packs for just $10, all the table games you love, with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Q U-E-S-T.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Nicholas, the bishop of Methone in Peloponnese, was a major Byzantine theologian of the 12th century, and he responded to Soterikos with an elaboration on the notion of hypostasis based on Leontius of Byzantium and Maximus the Confessor. The hypostatic union is precisely what permits one to consider God as performing humanly the act of offering, while maintaining that God by nature and therefore receiving the sacrifice. To Sotirikos, Nicholas opposed the conclusion of the Prayer of the Cherubicon, whose author, as modern research shows, is none other than Cyril of Alexander himself. But what is part of both Byzantine liturgies and attributed to Basil and Chrysostom is the words for it is thou who offerest and who art offered, who receivest and art thyself received. Nicholas, whose views were endorsed by The Council of 1156, 57, shows that neither the Eucharist nor the work of Christ in general can be reduced to a purely juridical notion of sacrifice conceived as an exchange. God does not have to receive anything from us we we do not go to him to make an offering. Rather, he condescends towards us, assumes our nature not as a condition of reconciliation, but in order to meet us openly in the flesh. Thus you can see how this refutes the Protestant doctrine of the purely juridical transaction. Does that make sense?

[Inquirer]

It's quite complicated, I must say. You were right.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

And then it goes on to say the very technical Christological discussions of the 12th century reconsider all the major issues which have been debated in the 5th and 6th and 7th the Byzantine Church remained fundamentally faithful to what Father Florovsky calls asymmetrical Christology, the union of God and man in Christ, the hypostatic source of all life is divine. The mankind is not diminished, but in fact becomes fully human. The notion of asymmetrical Christology is thus expressed in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is a unique act in which no single action of Christ is represented in isolation or reduced to any purely human concepts, such as a purely juridical, he's saying, exchange or satisfaction. Christ, as the Sinaticon says every Sunday of Orthodoxy, reconciles us to Himself by means of the whole mystery of the economy, by himself in Himself, and thus reconciles us to his God and Father and of course to the most holy life giving Spirit. So in other words, there's no sense at all in which there's a human subject that is offering something to the Son or to the Trinity. That's the key here. In other words, this dispute is a further reaffirmation of asymmetrical Christology that Christ is a divine hypostasis and there's no human subject that is part of this transaction and change. And offering the humanity is the humanity of the Divine Person of the Word that He offers to the Father. You see? Does that make sense?

[Inquirer]

So they sided with the first Antiochian deacon that it's not referring to offering to the whole Trinity, is that right?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Let me rephrase. Let me restate that part. It's a deacon. Yeah, Deacon Sotirikos, who affirmed the sacrifice could not be offered to the Trinity. For this would imply that the one Christ performs two opposing actions, a human action of offering and a divine action of receiving. And this would be Nestorian. But the response is that the hypostatic union is precisely what permits one to consider God as performing humanly the action of offering. So it's that he entered into the mode of humanity. It's not a human person offering, it's the Divine Son offering to humanity. Does that make sense? So in other words, he is the offerer and the receiver.

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

It's in the Synodicon as well, by the way.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, that's why it cites the Synodicon of saying that he proclaims that Christ reconciles us to Himself by means of the whole mystery of the economia, by Himself in Himself, to His God and Our Father and to the Spirit.

[Inquirer]

Oh yeah, because it's an hypostatonin him in a unique mode.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Exactly. So this is where mode becomes crucial. But if you look at it, this was the point I was making to Seraphim Hamilton in our discussion, which is that even the liturgy, if you were to follow it out, the theology of the liturgy, you would see that it refutes the Protestant reductionist notion of making it a juridical, theoretical bank account transaction. It's impossible with Correct. Trinitarian theology to have that view. That's the point here.

[Inquirer]

Perfect. Thanks.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yes, sir. Go ahead. Who's next?

[Inquirer]

It's me.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Okay.

[Inquirer]

Yeah. I'm a Muslim, by the way.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

What?

[Inquirer]

I interacted mainly with Oriented on this call. So them like. I might get a different answer from you, but would you say that being uncaused is a property of the essence or the Father, or.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

It's a hypostatic property. The Father is uncaused.

[Inquirer]

I think this is a better position than what I've heard from Oriented.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, well, Oriental theology is jacked up, so. Yeah.

[Inquirer]

Because it would sort of imply contradiction. The sun cannot be both uncaused and caused. You know, the cotton. Correct.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

He is not autotheos. Right. He is of the Father. And the original Nicene Creed and Nicene teaching is that he is divine because he is begotten.

[Inquirer]

Yeah. Also another question. Do you affirm that God has one act?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

No. The only time that. That's you. It's used by Saint Maximus and it's used by John Damascus. And Maximus is very clear in the two. In the 200 chapters that the only time that we say God is, quote, pure act is in contrast to creatures in himself, in his essence, in the inner trinitarian life. God is not pure act. He's clear as day. The first five pages of the 200 chapters says this, and John Damascus is not saying anything different. And again, I. I did a whole talk in Montana on the absurdities of saying that God is pure act in himself.

[Inquirer]

Okay. Can you. Which video in particular? Because I want to watch it.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

They lecture in Montana.

[Inquirer]

Okay. I'm going to watch.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So it's.

[Inquirer]

Anyway, thanks for. It's available for purchase through Jay's, so

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

you can watch the first half. It's.

[Inquirer]

Oh, that's right. That's right.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

It's called Roman Catholicism, Islam and Greek Philosophical Presuppositions. Montana lecture J. Dyer. So it's like, I don't know, five or six videos back.

[Inquirer]

Thank you for the response.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Sure. My pleasure. Thank you.

[Inquirer]

Hello?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Discord. Hello? Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just not if you can hear me.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

Hey, Jay.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Huh?

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

My name is Odin Benitez, and I just. This isn't a challenge or anything. I just want to thank you for really kind of bringing me to Orthodoxy. I'm in the. In the process of doing it. I was. I'm a supervising sound editor in Hollywood, and I've been working in the industry for 30 years. I may have some insights and, you know, into Hollywood and. And, you know, Their ideology.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Oh, interesting.

[Inquirer]

Cool.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

Yeah, it's like, I mean, the whole, you know, everybody kind of grows up with this. It's just, it's a huge echo chamber. But I, I'm sort of like you. I, I was baptized Catholic. I went to a Baptist high school, went to college, became a liberal Christian, got introduced to Gnosticism, was really fascinated by that, by the Gospel of Thomas and read a bunch of books until I realized it was Satanism basically.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Right.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

And I kind of went back then to Roman Catholicism just because I did a lot of investigation on the historical Jesus. And, and I thought that the, that the Catholic scholars were, were the best up at that point, but it wasn't really introduced to any of the Eastern fathers. And it's really odd because I did a lot of studying of Byzantium because I wrote a script about the fall of Constantinople.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Oh, cool.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

And, yeah. And I read like four different contemporary accounts and I read all the John Julius Norwich books. The interesting thing is though, that I never was really exposed to any of the theology. You know, even, I think even Norwich just said something along the lines about he didn't really understand what the difference is between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is something about the energies of Christ.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

And you know, and so I, I, So for me, this is really illuminating because I'm somewhat of an amateur scholar about Byzantium. I even wrote two chapters in military history book about some battles that, that occurred with the Byzantine Empire.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Awesome. That's crazy.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

Yeah. Which is. Yeah. So I, it's. So for me, this is sort of like, it's almost like providence. You know, I've been, I've studied so much of the Byzantine history, never really understanding the theology. And it's. So I'm making my way through Byzantine theology, that book and also some Father Seraphim books, Red Nihilism, which is just, it was like, it's a short book, but it took me forever to get through because each sentence is so thought provoking. But I just wanted to thank you. And, you know, I've founded a church out here and I'm in the process of, you know, once I get through this business theology, I want to contact the priest and I've been to vespers already.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Awesome. Yeah, that's great to hear. I know that we are in the process right now of converting Hugh Jackman, Mel Gibson. I'm joking. I'm just joking.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

Yeah, right.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

I mean, you know what my cousin actually drove with, he was Mel Gibson's driver. And you know, before the whole thing, his idea about the resurrection that he and Mel were partying and Mel got kind of close to him and said, you know, I've got this idea about making a movie about the resurrection. I think that's the next film.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Cool. Yeah, I'm looking forward to that. I think that's going to be a good movie.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

You know, to convert him. He's. He's a. What is a pre Vatican or is it Vatican one? Catholic, I think.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Well, he's a son of a. Contest. Yeah.

[Inquirer]

Right. Right.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So, yeah, and they're. They're the. The. We are the original set of a contest as orthodox. So maybe eventually we can convert Mel Gibson. So pray for the conversion. Mel Gibson. But yeah, I think this, the resurrection movie does sound like a good idea.

[Inquirer]

I was bummed to hear. So him and Mark Wahlberg are doing a movie about a Roman Catholic priest in my town. And I was like, this is my chance. Because, you know, my cassock just gets me into anything. I just introduced myself, then I found out they're filming. They're not filming in Montana. They're not gonna be up. Well, that's so I know I could have got them.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

Well, you know, I. I still have another contact and just to my cousin, there's another co worker who actually works for him as his assistant. So, you know, there is a chance.

[Inquirer]

Tell them I'm looking for.

[Odin Benitez (Guest/Orthodox Convert)]

I will.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Is there a problem?

[Inquirer]

Your car didn't work.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Anybody else? We got a full room here. Open chat.

[Inquirer]

Yeah. Jay, how's it going, bro?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

What's up, baby? It's Bretzky, and I'm here to tell you that spinquest.com is giving out free sweets coins. All you got to do is is purchase a $10 coin pack. And guess what? They're going to give you the coins from a $30 coin pack that lets you play all your favorite games like Blackjack, Wanted Dead or Wild. And we're talking real cash prizes, baby. Spin quest dot com. Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spin quest.com for more details.

[Inquirer]

Oh, I'm gonna.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Oh, here we go.

[Inquirer]

No. Oh, it's Dustin, dude.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Oh, hey, what's up, dude? You had that tone of like. You had that tone of. You had that. You have that tone of like, I love you, but I hate you. Right? Like, I'm about to destroy you, dude.

[Inquirer]

Yeah, right.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

I'm gonna.

[Inquirer]

I'm gonna roast you.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Jay, I love you and I love your content, but, like, let me explain why you're the worst human being on the planet. Right now

[Inquirer]

it's like, you know, you could win debates, Jay, if you could figure out your boomer tech and unmute your mic roast. Burn.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Gross.

[Inquirer]

Anyways, this actually this question is from Zhao. He says, how would you refute postmodernist thinkers like Umberto Echo and Dera and their theories of semiotic. Whoops. Theories of semiotics against metaphysics.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

I did a whole video on Echo and Echo has a whole essay where he basically argues that the, the goal of the true leftist and he's speaking in a general sense of like classical, what he sees as the history of all leftism. He says it's not a battle of liberals against a fascist regime. He says that the real battle and goal of the leftist is against truth, which is fascism in essence. So any notion that there's truth, Echo says is fascism. And he says that's the real battle of the liberal is against truth itself. Can't make this up. That's it's a famous essay. It's like the ur Fascist or the something like that by Echo. I highly recommend reading that essay because it really gives you an insight into the mindset of a person who was a committed rabid Thomist who at some point in college or when it was, I don't grad school, he realized that Thomism doesn't work. Thomism is a broken dead end system. And instead of going towards orthodoxy or something like that, Echo said, no, I'm going to be like the uber liberal. I'm going to go the demon satanic route, like literal Satanism. I mean, I think Echo is probably a like totally into Luciferian. I mean I've read most of his books, so I'm not saying this out of speculation. I mean he fills his books with gnostic, satanic, Luciferian, esoteric themes. Especially if you read Foucault's Pendulum. He's basically defending the idea of, you know, a satanic elite, more or less. And ultimately of course he's critiquing all these things he says too, like, oh, you know, the idea of any kind of elite is absurd. So he kind of adopts this nihilistic absurdist view that whether you're a Christian who believes in truth or whether you're this sort of Luciferian, gnostic, kabbalist, elitist, it's all absurdity, it's all nihilism, it's all just nothing. So you could read his books in that way as if it's like cosmic nihilism. Maybe he's like that final stage of Father Seraphim. Rose's book on nihilism. But regardless, Eco is a great example of the mature spiritually, like I'm saying, darkly matured, like self conscious evil. That is like our battle is against truth itself. Any notion that there's such a thing as truth is the real battle of the liberal. So you get that rare honesty in Umberto Eco's famous essay. So when we understand that that's the real motivation of a Derrida, of a Foucault, of a echo of the, the deconstructionists. Now we understand that that's, that's really what's going on here. And quite obviously it's self refuting. I mean, why are we, we're writing books, using words and meaning to say books and words have no meaning, it's just fundamentally stupid. And they're okay with that, right? So postmodernists are okay with accepting nonsense, contradictions. There's no grand narratives. Okay, but that's a grand narrative, okay? And if we're, if we're accepting contradictions and nonsense and chaos and meaninglessness, then you can't make arguments that nonsense and chaos and meaninglessness is true. So you've done your job as an apologist and at a certain point there's nothing that you can do with people like that. Like, you can't. If people are self consciously willfully wanting that level of evil, all you can do is pray for their repentance. I mean, there's like, that's self conscious evil. Right. So I hope that answers the question about echo. Anybody else?

[Inquirer]

Hey, Jay, I have a question.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Sure.

[Inquirer]

When philosophy talks about separated brethren,

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

who.

[Inquirer]

Okay, And I wonder what you think about that. And what, what does that mean with relation to, you know, heterodox or people outside the church.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Right. So sometimes that word is used. I don't think it's necessarily always wrong. I mean, because you can have people who don't know all the issues, right? I mean, who aren't hardened in their heresy. They're not formal heretics. Right. So I do agree that there is a patristic idea of somebody who is not a formal heretic, but is a material heretic, a heretic impotentia, you could say. And that's because heresy is usually defined as not a sin of just merely being wrong, but a sin of obstinacy. So a heretic is not somebody just, just wrong. Because we're all wrong. Right. So are we all heretics? Because I'm sure everybody's got some point in their theology. Wrong. Right. So, but the Sin of heresy and the sin of schism are sins of obstinacy, will and knowledge. So you're knowingly, obstinately persisting in the error, in the heresy. There's not a, you know, always a clear cut like black and white in terms of every individual, when a person's obstinately a heretic. So what we do from our vantage point is we don't try to go, you know, person by person making specific judgments. We just do a judgment call on the group as a whole. And there's nothing wrong with that because we're not condemning everybody as if we know their inner state or their heart. But what we do know is that at least before the end of a person's life, they have to be Orthodox. They have to believe and be united to the Orthodox faith. So if God somehow makes up for that, if God gives them a special means at the point of death or something like that, we don't know. But our job, our duty, just like infants who die without baptism or outside the Church, do we know that they go to hell? No, we simply commend them to God, and we don't know their total in fate, but our job is to tell them and call them to Orthodoxy. So at the time when the phrase separated brethren was used at Florence, that's used by St. Mark of Ephesus at the beginning of the Council. There's a great article over at Orthodox Ethos that points out that by the end of the Council, St Mark of Ephesus realized that they're not separated brethren, they're heterodox. And you get the exact same expression in St. Gregory Palamos. He says that the Latins are heterodox. They listen to Satan. They're wrong. They're heresy. They're in heresy. But that doesn't mean that we have to go by every single person, one by one, and say, you're a damned heretic. You're a damn heretic, you're a damn heretic. We don't have to do that because it's not our job to judge every individual person. It's rather a collective public judgment that we make about what they profess to believe, which is in error and is heresy. And if and God will deal with them on an individual level, we don't have to do that. That's why Paul says, what have we to do with judging those who are without? We judge those within. So it's much more pertinent to us to assess in the Orthodox Church who is and isn't Orthodox. We don't have. We're not. It's not. We don't have to worry about what does Brother Billy Bob believe? What does Michael Lofton believe? What does. So they're. They're heterodox and God will deal with them. We don't have to. But it's. But. But it's important to point out that ecumenists misused the phrase separated brethren. Because after the council, St Mark of Ephesus says they are not any more separated brethren. They are obstinate Latins, and they're stupid and they're in heresy.

[Inquirer]

Okay, so, like, whoever. So God deals with each person according to what they've been given. And so if they haven't had the full revelation, the full truth, like, God will, you know, lead them into truth and all possible means, and we don't have to worry about that.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

That's what I would say. But we do have the duty, Right? But it's just like. Like evangelism, right? Like, we have the duty to tell people that you have to, you know, come into the church, repent and believe, baptize all the nations. Right? Jesus says the Great Commission. Now, we're not told, like, what happens to people that die, that never hear the gospel. We don't know. I mean, we're not told that. What we know is what we're told to do. That's all we know. I don't know. And one thing that is, I think orthodoxy helps you accept as you get older, is that there's a reason why God doesn't tell us everything. So I'm perfectly fine with, like, I don't know what happens to the guy who dies in, you know, the Pagan island, who never heard the gospel. Well, I mean, unless God has a special means by which he joins that person to the church at the point of death or something like that. I mean, then we don't know. We're not told. But what we are told is that we have to preach and tell them to come into the kingdom.

[Inquirer]

Okay, great. Thank you.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Sure. Anybody there? Hello? Are you in there? It's not. If you can hear me. It's like the wall up in the discord, brah.

[Inquirer]

I have a question.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yes?

[Spinquest Promoter]

Forget whatever plans you have this weekend, because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest. And there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love, with hundreds of slot games and real cash prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Q U E-S-T.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Inquirer]

So it's a question about like veganism. Like, so I just want to make it clear I'm not a vegan. Like I eat meat and stuff. Like to have a question about just like the, the, you know, about arguments against vegans. Okay. So I know like there's a lot of examples in throughout the Bible that eating meat is fine and stuff, the lamb is slain and stuff. Like there's plenty of examples. But like was it. I don't know if you know the answer to this, but what is it the case that pre fall state, like the Edenic state, eating animals or meat was thing or is it just like the post fall?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So there's a lot of people misunderstand this. Actually you're correct. In Eden nobody ate meat that we know of. Exactly. There's some debate over what the, you know, making skins means. But regardless, humans don't eat meat until Noah. So it's at Noah that God says, you may now eat meat. So presumably we don't know what the wicked were up to. They might have been engaging in cannibalism for all we know. That might have been part of the reason why there was a flood. That's a lot of speculation. But for God's people it's not, they're not told until Noah, Genesis 8, 9, right, that now you may eat meat. So that's a, a, an allowance after the flood. And then if you read Acts 15, when the Gentiles are brought into the church, what happens is that the apostles have their counsel in Acts 15. They say, okay, we're not going to require of Gentile converts anything more than was required in the covenant of Noah. Because if Noah, who was obviously everybody knows a Gentile, if he could be made righteous at that time, then we are not going to require anything more than was required of Noah for entering the covenant, so to speak. So all Acts 15 is, is a restatement of the Noah covenant which says don't eat strangled meat, cook your food. Right. Just basic principles like that. So yes, meat eating is allowable not just because of Noah, but also in the New Testament. And then we get Paul saying to Timothy that false teachers will come along and they'll try to erect a fake morality and a fake ethical code, code by which they say that it's wrong to marry and it's wrong to eat flesh. So Gnostics Ebionites. Right. And within a few centuries, the early Church fathers, the first of which is Saint Hippolytus, he has a treatise on heresies and he mentions the Brahmans. He says the Brahmans taught a doctrine of vegetarianism and not meeting eat. And so they would ethically enforce that it's morally wrong to eat meat. They are condemned. They're not just condemned there, they're condemned again in totality in some of the early councils, but also in St. John Damascus book on heresies, where he lists three or four heretical sects. The Ebionites, the Pythagoreans and one or two other groups, the Tatianites, Gnostics, Marcionites, different groups that would enforce vegetarianism. And it's unanimously, consistently condemned by the Church fathers across the board. A lot of people don't know this too. Remember everybody, veganism is an ethical position. It is not a diet based position. So when the vegans are telling you that you have to be vegan, it's not about your diet. In fact, they know that it is not advantageous most of the time for humans to eat that goober stupid diet and they tell you that it doesn't matter. Yes, it may be bad for your health, but you have a duty ethically to accept bad for your health things. Because veganism is an ethical position, not a dietary position.

[Inquirer]

Thank you.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yes, sir.

[Inquirer]

Hey, James. Yeah. I want to ask.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah. So again, Tristan, the attitude is that the food should be cooked. I'm not saying that it's always wrong to eat sushi. It's not a, it's. I think the attitude of why the food is to be cooked is because of the ancient world's attitude towards what might make you sick. So yes, I'm sure that plenty of people eat rare food or eat sushi. I don't think that Acts 15 is implying that it's always wrong to eat sushi, but blood, if you look at

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

the prescription for example of the Council of Gangra, which you mentioned against these people, it's more about blood and there this thing, you know, blood pudding, blood sausage and so on. Many parts of world would not be permitted. And it's this link with, you know, St. James is a very. So he's a president of the council, page 15 and he's a very sacetal figure. So it's, it might also be referring to. The idea is that since, you know, we are becoming divine in a sense by consuming divine blood as a recognition of our conception of divine blood, we would give the exclusivity of our blood conception to, to Christ, to divine blood.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, that's an interesting mention.

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

Specifically, like, like when they talk about like uncooked foods, it's always about blood, right?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

So, Tristan, I'm not trying to counter signal you, but I would disagree that I think that the implication is that it is supposed to be cooked because there is in Levitical law the prohibiting of eating raw flesh. So yes, it's true that Acts 15 doesn't specifically say you must cook the meat, but it's already presupposed in the way that they're approaching the question.

[Inquirer]

So.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

And again, it's not a legalistic thing that you can never have something like sushi. I don't think, I don't think it's that big of a deal. But like Snack said, it has oftentimes been understood in that way. So

[Inquirer]

I was just wondering what is some of the, the basic terminology like in general for that you need to know for Christology and trinitarian theology?

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Well, there's a good book by Vladimir Lavsky called Dogmatic Theology, and he has basically a pretty useful glossary at the back of the book where he defines kind of the basic ideas of hypostasis and nature and energies and this kind of stuff. So that would be a good kind of rough book. But, but the basics would be. I think David has some videos too. David, the real med White on the basic terms that you want to know, but you know, person, nature, energy, will tropos mode, right. In hypostatize. Those are all key words that we want to know.

[Inquirer]

Okay, thanks.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Sure.

[Inquirer]

Jay, I had a quick one. It was something that came up on Twitter about. It's about saying Basil. I just want you to comment real

[Spinquest Promoter]

quick because now the reformed in their

[Inquirer]

terrible arguments against us are now trying to claim several St. Basil's letters. We have like letter 360 or forgeries,

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

I don't know at the top of my head what, what 360 is. Now some of Basil's letters have been thought to be Gregory nyssa, like letter 38 is on nature. And person is now believed to be Gregory Nissa. But I don't like what is. What exactly does that. I mean, who cares what a reformed person thinks? And, and, and I. What is letter number360? I don't know if the top of my head what it is.

[Inquirer]

Are you there?

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

Excuse me?

[Inquirer]

Oh, it's, it's the letter from St. Basil talking about iconography because, you know, they're iconoclast. So they're trying to argue that any patristic evidence for venerating icons has to be forged.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Okay, well, everybody doubts, I mean, there's plenty of people who doubt the authenticity of the Epiphanius essay against iconography. So it doesn't really matter if, I mean, our argument for, and belief in iconography doesn't hinge on a letter from Basil. I mean, it hinges on the principle behind, behind the Incarnation, the real presence in the Eucharist, sacramentalism. I mean, that's the basis for why we believe that icons, you know, do what they do. It's not, it's not all hinging on, you know, a letter from Basil.

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

Yeah, just chime in. So, yeah, if you're looking for a critical perspective, there's always going to be some level of criticism. Now this letter is really on its face in terms of, of iconography because it literally says that evaluates icons. If you want to prove iconography from St. Basil, I would maybe be a bit careful. I would not use stuff that, you know, they might refuse as they might debate because, you know, there's always some level, if you're in a critical mindset, but there's always a way in which you would, you wouldn't use it. So if you want to Pro iconography of St. Basil, you can, you can use many of his letters when he refers to glory given to the type being transferred to the prototype. And we've got all of these ideas. So it's talking about the Trinity, but you can show that there's a principle here. And I think there's also, there's also something from him talking about the image of the Emperor, you know, in order to.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, passes.

[Snack (Theologian/Commentator)]

So I think that instead of using this one, which can be debated, and I understand why it can be debated because it seems very obvious and as there are some that are, you know, there are some actually, I know there's a fake quote by Athanasius on icons, but instead of using this one, you can, you can show that actually St. Basil already understood the principle of iconography and actually applied it to his Trinitarian theology. And those are seven councils just doing that in reverse, which is just natural terms, return to source. But if you want to go from a full on church perspective, then you, you'll be a bit less critical. But if you're talking to Price, then please accept that they can have some criticism. You know, we also have some criticism of some documents in, in other contexts, you know.

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

Yeah, I mean, they always pick it. They just do this game where they like quote mine to find a church father who disagreed at some point. Okay, but so what? Like, what does that prove? Because nobody is hinging the position on every church father having a unanimous agreement at every stage. I mean, there wouldn't be councils if everybody agreed, right? So it really doesn't matter. And Sneck's right that I wouldn't hinge the argument on a dubious letter. I would just point out the principles that the seventh council uses. If you read St. Theodore's book on the holy icons, he uses the argument like type prototype that snack just mentioned.

[Spinquest Promoter]

Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spin Quest exclusives, Blackjack, roulette, baccarat, and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to. And right now, new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free to

[Jay (Host/Orthodox Theologian)]

play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Advertiser]

Are you a fraud paying American? One in four taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity fraud with Lifelock. If your identity is stolen, they fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Last year, billions in refunds were stolen. Could be from your salary, overtime or second job gone. But this year you don't need to stay a victim because this tax season, fraud paying American is something no American should have to claim. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com iheart Terms apply.