Jay Dyer VS Protestants (Compilation)

Summary

---

Jay Dyer VS Protestants (Compilation)

Podcast: Jay'sAnalysis
Host: Jay Dyer
Date: January 8, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode showcases a compilation of Jay Dyer's best audio encounters, debates, and Q&A segments with various Protestant (and occasionally Catholic or Reformed) interlocutors. The focus is on theological disputes between Orthodox Christianity (as represented by Jay) and different streams of Protestantism, particularly regarding salvation, sacramental theology, church tradition, the canon of scripture, authority in the church, and Trinitarian controversies.

With Jay's typically caustic, direct, but comprehensive tone, the episode is rich with dense theological arguments, scriptural exegesis, historical references, and a healthy dose of debate banter. Dyer’s background in philosophy and patristics is evident throughout as he pushes his discussion partners to back their claims with sources, logic, and historical documentation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Debate Over Baptism and Salvation

• Born Again & Baptism:
  • Jay challenges the Protestant/Baptist tendency to separate the concept of being "born again" from water baptism.
  • Argues (with references to John 3, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38-39) that the New Testament normatively ties new birth and remission of sins to literal water baptism, not just an inward “belief” or “repentance.”
• Quote:
  • “You're just restating the question I'm asking you, how do you know that that's what Paul means in all those passages about baptism?” (B, 00:52)
  • “The normative means by which we do this is said to be multiple times throughout the New Testament, actual baptism. So you're just assuming Protestantism, which is the very thing that I'm questioning about.” (B, 02:17)

2. Protestantism as Ahistorical

• Liturgical Practices:
  • Jay accuses Protestantism of being “ahistorical, anti-sacramental, anti-mystical” and failing to maintain continuity with the early church in both worship and doctrine.
  • He rebuffs the argument that Orthodoxy is equally ahistorical due to the fall of Constantinople, dismissing it as a non-theological and irrelevant criterion.
• Memorable banter:
  • “So Orthodoxy is false because Byzantium fell.” (B, 06:39)
  • “Let's get on my banana phone and call up the Bananantine Emperor... I just hear monkeys chirping.” (B, 07:20)

3. Saint Augustine, Error, and Heresy

• Difference between Error and Heresy:
  • Jay clarifies that error is not heresy; humility and willingness to submit to the church set apart correctable theologians (like Augustine) from condemned heretics (like Origen).
  • Highlights that saints can be wrong on non-essential issues, yet remain saints.
• Quote:
  • “Heresy is a sin of will and obstinacy, not just a sin of mistake or error. And not even Roman Catholics believe that he got everything right. ... Making a mistake is not the essence of a heresy. Obstinacy and pride is the essence of heresy.” (B, 10:03)

4. Apostolic Succession & the Canon

• On Protestant Claims:
  • Jay points out that classical Reformation Protestants lack a belief in apostolic succession as understood by the ancient church—any attempt to claim it (as in High Church Anglicanism) is a redefinition of tradition.
  • He insists, with historical references, that the canon of scripture (what books are in the Bible) was set by the early Ecumenical Councils and is absent from the Bible itself, thereby invalidating sola scriptura.
• Quote:
  • “There's no Protestants who are classical Reformation Protestants that believe that there's a transmission of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands.” (B, 12:11)
  • “If everything that we knew was in Scripture, then the list of the canonical books would be in Scripture.” (B, 52:30)

5. Trinity & The Filioque Controversy

• Cappadocian Doctrine:
  • Jay forcefully argues that the Cappadocian Fathers’ formulation of the Trinity denies the Filioque (“and the Son” clause in the procession of the Holy Spirit), insisting “the Father alone is the sole cause” within the Godhead.
  • He exposes his debate opponent’s lack of familiarity with basic patristic texts and Cappadocian terminology, stressing the need for knowledge before entering into these debates.
• Notable exchange:
  • “If the Father is the principle and the Son also with him is also a principle, that's two.” (B, 26:41)
  • “You don't even know the basic Cappadocian terms. You don't even know our basic position, and you're trying to argue with me...” (B, 25:17)
  • “Persons are subjects, not relations.” (B, 30:05)

6. Justification: Faith Alone or Ontological Change?

• Justification by Faith Alone:
  • Jay critiques the Reformation doctrine, arguing that “legal, imputed righteousness” is an innovation of the medieval nominalists and is absent from both scripture and the patristic tradition.
  • He shows, via analysis of Abraham's story in Genesis, that the Protestant reading of “justification by faith alone” (Romans 4) is incoherent because Abraham demonstrates faith and obedience prior to the pivotal Genesis 15:6.
  • References Alister McGrath’s research as a Protestant acknowledgment that this doctrine arose late.
• Memorable quote:
  • “Nobody in the ancient medieval world were nominalists and you need nominalism to have that position. That is a name only position, a legal standing position that doesn't reflect an actual ontological change in the being.” (B, 31:25)

7. Mariology & Sinlessness

• Mary as Sinless:
  • Jay affirms the Orthodox belief that Mary (the Theotokos) is “spotless,” having never committed actual sin due to God's grace, positioning her as the true New Eve.
  • Clarifies the Orthodox distinction between sin as a state versus sin as an act of the will, and refutes the Calvinistic view of infants as "damned" sinners.
• Quote:
  • “If she’s the new Eve, she would be like Eve. Instead of being a fallen creature in the sense of actual sin, she would be preserved from that, like Eve would have been had she not sinned.” (B, 16:46)

8. Tradition and Scripture

• Definition of Tradition:
  • The Orthodox understanding of tradition is “the full revelation, whether contained in the written text or oral preaching of the apostles... the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” (B, 19:39)
  • Jay points out that core doctrines and ecclesial practices—the scope of the New Testament, the Trinity, liturgy—are not spelled out explicitly in scripture but are faithfully preserved as tradition.
• Mocking evangelicals:
  • “Paul the Apostle went and got a bunch of the laser lights and he put it into the house church, and then they was doing whatever they wanted.” (B, 53:35)

9. On Saints, Heaven, and Theosis

• Theosis and Intercession:
  • Jay explains deification (theosis): saints share in the divine energies, becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), which enables their mystical presence in icons and participation in liturgy (“heaven on earth").
  • The intercession of saints, including Mary, is biblically grounded (Revelation 5–9), and not a detraction from Christ's unique mediation.

10. Church Authority & Excommunication

• Limits of Authority:
  • The structure of ecclesial authority provides for appeals up to synods and, ultimately, pan-Orthodox agreement; abuses can occur, but the Holy Spirit and conciliarity guide eventual vindication and correction.
• Quote:
  • “If a bishop gets something wrong... you go up a court of appeals. It doesn't mean that it's not law. ... An ecumenical council cannot [be challenged] because it's the entire church and that is the Holy Spirit.” (A/B, 76:05–79:29)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• On Protestant doctrine:

  • “Please keep asserting the Protestant doctrine, which is what I'm challenging…” (B, 01:43)

• On historical knowledge:

  • “This is why I blocked this guy, because this is too, too dumb…” (B, 05:01)

• On Tradition:

  • “It's the full revelation, whether contained in the written text or the oral preaching of the apostles…” (B, 19:39)

• On the canon:

  • “So all of this assertion of active, passive, determined—this is all Protestant gibberish. I can tell you the exact places where in the history of the Church these decisions were made.” (B, 44:16)

• On Calvinism:

  • “Calvinism relies on a soteriology doctrine that's ahead of Christology… it ends up saying that Christ has to be damned for you to be saved. Do you believe that?” (B, 90:12)

• Mocking aggressive Protestant debating:

  • “You're just restating the question… How do you know that that’s what Paul means in all those passages about baptism?” (B, 00:52)
  • “You can't restate my argument? Are you not listening to what I said or you just didn't catch it?” (B, 23:28)
  • “Shut up. Shut up or you're gone.” (B, 37:59)

• On liturgy and revelation:

  • “Heaven comes down to earth in the liturgy, and that's how the saints are present.” (B, 56:21)

• On synodal authority:

  • “...for all intents and purposes, [the Palamite synods] are infallible Pan Orthodox Councils.” (B, 81:41)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Timestamp | Topic/Segment | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:04–02:42 | Baptism, Born Again, and Remission of Sins | | 02:54–04:31 | Protestantism’s Historical Claims, Martin Luther | | 05:01–06:48 | Protestantism as Ahistorical, Fall of Constantinople | | 07:50–10:48 | Augustine, Error vs. Heresy, Filioque | | 11:08–13:11 | Reformed “Apostolic Succession” Claims | | 13:18–16:21 | Christ’s Sacrifice, Penal Substitution | | 16:46–19:00 | Mary’s Sinlessness, Original Sin, Infants | | 19:11–19:57 | Orthodox Definition of Tradition | | 20:01–30:48 | Filioque, Cappadocian Fathers, Hypostatic Principle | | 31:01–40:48 | Justification by Faith, Abraham, Imputation | | 42:06–52:13 | Canon of Scripture, Authority, Apostolic Canons | | 52:30–53:53 | Sola Scriptura, Liturgical Patterns | | 53:53–64:43 | Saints, Intercession, Theosis, Liturgy | | 65:09–69:11 | Mary, Intercession, Protestant Objections | | 69:13–82:16 | Normative Authority, Excommunication, Synods | | 89:13–91:41 | Calvinism, Compatibilism, Personal Experience |

---

Tone & Style

• Jay Dyer's characteristic style: unyielding, sarcastic, thorough, and combative when necessary—often shifting from quick-fire refutations to deep dives in patristics and historical theology.
• Language: Candid, sometimes provocative, peppered with humor (“banana phone,” “Bananantine Emperor”), but always referencing key texts, councils, and patristic writings.
• Emphasis: Jay repeatedly asks his debate partners “have you read...?”, attempting to expose unfamiliarity with the foundational sources behind their positions.

---

In Summary

This compilation is both didactic and polemical—an audio tour of Jay Dyer’s unapologetic Orthodox apologetics in direct confrontation with a broad spectrum of Protestant positions. Jay insists that enduring Christianity must be historical, sacramental, conciliar, and founded in the consensus of the undivided Church, not in innovations or private interpretations. The episode illustrates the complexity, depth, and intensity of debates at the intersection of scripture, tradition, authority, and Christian identity.

Transcript

[A]

The Bible doesn't say if you're a Protestant or Catholic Orthodox, you will be saved. It says you must be born again.

[B]

Yeah, but what does that mean? Because the rest of the New Testament texts talk about that being baptism. Yeah, well, born again is.

[A]

We have three kinds of death in the Bible. One is a physical death, spiritual death, and eternal death, which is also called second death. So we die.

[B]

What does that have to do with baptism? What I just said, baptism is an outer. You're just repeating Protestant Baptist doctrines. And I'm telling you in Titus 3. 5, it's called the washing of the labor. Regeneration.

[A]

Yes, but that's in the spirit.

[B]

What's. What I'm saying now? How do you know that? You're just asserting that when Paul doesn't make that distinction. How do you know that every time Paul talks about baptism, it's, quote, spiritual?

[A]

Well, the baptism was an outer confession.

[B]

You're just restating the question I'm asking you, how do you know that that's what Paul means in all those passages about bapt.

[A]

Because it's all over the Bible.

[B]

So the answer is it's all over when. That's the thing I'm asking you. So in other words. So why are you, for the third time, gonna just tell me your interpretation again?

[A]

No, it's not my interpretation. What the Bible says Jesus said in John.

[B]

That's what you're saying. That's what the Bible says. And I'm saying no. In John 3, I think Jesus is talking about water baptism. And that's why Acts 2 Peter says, Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Is it water baptism in Acts 2, 38, 39.

[A]

But the born again happens that repentance.

[B]

Is it water baptism in Acts 2, 38, 39?

[A]

Yes, definitely.

[B]

Oh, it is. But that's where he says is the remission of sins.

[A]

No, the remission of sins.

[B]

It doesn't happen with washing in the water. It literally says that in Acts 2, 38, 39.

[A]

No, nobody gets saved by being baptized in water.

[B]

That's your. Yeah, please keep asserting the Protestant doctrine, which is what I'm challenging, which you said it is water baptism in Acts 238, 39. And he says that that is the remission of sins.

[A]

But listen, when I became a believer.

[B]

This is your subjective interpretation. I don't. It doesn't matter what your personal experience was.

[A]

No, I'm telling you right now, there are tens of thousands of Iranians who have become believers in Jesus and they are not able to get Baptized. Because in Iran there's not possibility to get arrested. But they love the Lord and they're not even baptized. But they're born again, they're full of the Holy Spirit.

[B]

That's just begging the question that we. I mean, they may be in God's mind and that's fine, but the normative means by which we do this is said to be multiple times throughout the New Testament, actual baptism. So you're just assuming Protestantism, which is the very thing that I'm questioning about. So how do you prove Protestantism to me?

[A]

Well, as I said, I'm not the Protestant. Was a.

[B]

Basically, you are a Protestant. Why are you acting like you're not? Okay, you're evangelical. Is that better?

[A]

Yeah, basically. What happened with the Protestantism, Martin Luther. It was a protest against Catholic system of justification by works or faith plus works. And what all Protestant was, was no.

[B]

We are justified by faith. Again, I don't need to. I know the history of the Protestant Reformation. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but I'm asking you about evangelicalism, which is what you're part of, and I'm asking you why should we accept evangelicalism?

[A]

Again, it's not evangelicalism.

[B]

It's.

[A]

It's being.

[B]

You're being dishonest because you just admitted that you weren't evangelical like two minutes ago.

[A]

Yeah, Evangelical.

[B]

What is evangelical?

[A]

The Christians.

[B]

I'm not going to argue with you over terms. Where do you get your Bible from?

[A]

What do you mean, what am I getting the Bible?

[B]

Where do you get the Bible from? Did it just fall out of the air into Iran?

[A]

No, I. I actually, in Iran is illegal to have a Bible. So I don't live in Iran now I live in Israel. But when I became a believer, I searched for a Bible for three months. I couldn't find one.

[B]

We're moving on.

[A]

So you made a video a while back talking about Protestantism and criticizing them a bit in this open debate format that you do. And three issues you said you stayed with. It was. It was ahistorical, it was anti sacramental, anti mystical and just flat out dumb.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

The problem that I have with that is specifically ahistorical. Okay. And the issues I have with that and some of the issues you gave for why Protestantism is anti historical was they don't follow the liturgical worship properly. They don't do certain customs and traditions that were practiced by the early church and don't have the exact same pieces of scripture or some examples.

[B]

Those are some examples. There could be Many more listed. Sure.

[A]

And the issue I have with that, if Protestantism is ahistorical by those standards, I would say so is Orthodoxy.

[B]

And how is that?

[A]

Well, for starters, Constantinople fell in 1453.

[B]

You can't be serious. That this is an argument? That you think this is an argument?

[A]

It's just. It's the start of one. Yeah.

[B]

What does this have to do with the theology? This is why I blocked this guy, because this is too, too dumb. I mean, are you, are you serious? The sonata kind of Orthodoxy?

[A]

Yeah, because I believe in the sonatakon of Orthodoxy. And one of the statements you give thanksgiving and that is the glorification and the of the defenders of Orthodoxy. Am I not mistaken?

[B]

Probably. I don't remember. It's a giant text.

[A]

It's a giant text. That's different among different branches of Orthodoxy.

[B]

Right. Because different bishops can add their own personal. For example, Metropolitan Seraphim of Paraeus adds the Jehovah's Witnesses to the condemnation text. Sure.

[A]

And the problem I have with that is the statement of the defender of Orthodoxy, which originally within the Church was the Holy Roman Emperor, as was stated by Anthony, Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1393 to a letter to Basil the First, the Grand Prince of Moscow, saying, my son, it is not possible for Christians to have a church and not have an emperor. Church and empire have a great unity and community. It is not possible for them to be separated from one another, for the Holy Emperor is not as other rulers and the governors of other regions. And this is because the emperors from the beginning establish and confirm true religion in all inhabited world. Okiomenia. They convoked.

[B]

You don't even know the word.

[A]

Yeah, I don't know how to pronounce the word, obviously.

[B]

And so Orthodoxy is false because Byzantium fell.

[A]

I mean, it's not just that Bonanzium fell.

[B]

All right, now we see why I. I booted this guy. And I was right to beat that guy. This is too stupid to even entertain. So, guys, I know you want entertainment, but when you asked me to bring back bonantium and these kinds of goofballs, it's usually because they're booted for a reason. So let's get on my banana phone and let's call up Banantium and let's talk to the Bananantine Emperor and see if we can get any history about why he's not ruling on an earthly throne to help ensure bonantium. Hello? Hello? Can anyone else call on the banana phone and see if they can get the Bananantine Emperor. Hello? I just hear monkeys chirping. I think I called the Matt Dilla monkey line accidentally. I got Matt dillamonkey on speed dial.

[A]

Does the Eastern Orthodox church think that.

[B]

St. Augustine is a saint? Yes, he's called a saint at the fifth Ecumenical Council.

[A]

Okay. Did he hold heresies?

[B]

He held to errors. An error is not necessarily a heresy. Every church father in some way has some error. That doesn't make them all heretics.

[A]

Okay, so the filioque divines absolute divine simplicity are in heresies.

[B]

A heresy is something that's declared a heresy by the Church eventually in a council. Augustine didn't believe anything erroneous at his time that he knew was a heresy. So the filioque is not condemned until the Middle Ages.

[A]

Okay, so before the Nicene, kind of the Nicene Council, if someone held that Jesus was in God or co substantial with the Father, then they were in heretics.

[B]

Right? According to that logic, no. Because some errors are significant enough that the person that holds them, it's the attitude that they have and the humility that they have. So, for example, when Augustine writes on the Trinity, he says in book three, I am speculating and I give these books to the judgment of the universal Church, and if there's anything wrong in them, they can be rejected. So that's the attitude of humility that, for example, Origen didn't have. Origen was obstinate to the end of his life and his heresies, and he did not submit to the judgment of the Church, whereas Augustine did. So Augustine's humility is what covers the theological speculations and mistakes that he had. Whereas for the people that you're talking about, it's different.

[A]

Okay, gotcha. Was he later corrected, though by other bishops and other theologians?

[B]

If he hands his book to the Church for judgment, and that doesn't mean that it happens overnight, if the Church doesn't in his lifetime judge it, but the Church judges by the time of the fifth Ecumenical Council that he's a saint. By the way, do you know what book the fifth Ecumenical Council lists as his preeminent theological work?

[A]

No.

[B]

Okay. It's none of those books. It's against the Manichaeans. So it's not on the Trinity or City of God or any of these other works.

[A]

Okay, gotcha. That was my question. Thank you.

[B]

So heresy is a sin of will and obstinacy, not just a sin of mistake or error. And not even Roman Catholics believe that he got everything right. They think he made all kinds of theological mistakes, which would mean that Roman Catholicism is false, if that's the criteria. Because Augustine taught a pretty strict doctrine of predestination that the Roman Catholic Church eventually doesn't adhere to. So if that's the case, then in the Roman Catholic system he's also a heretic. But pretty much everybody has a degree of flexibility for saints in the Church because no saint got everything as an individual saint. Correct. Many of them got all kinds of things wrong. Many of them got the canon of Scripture wrong. And that's an important thing. But it doesn't make them all heretics because they made a mistake. Making a mistake is not the essence of a heresy. Obstinacy and pride is the essence of heresy.

[A]

Just had a couple of questions like about Eastern Orthodox relationships, I guess to the Reformed. Okay, so I guess for starters, the main condemnation of the Reformed would be their relationship to Roman Catholicism. Correct.

[B]

The Orthodox condemnation of the Reformed would be the relation to Roman Catholicism. I don't know even know what that means.

[A]

Like I, I suppose I can qualify the question. So the Reformed are going to try to make some claim about their apostolic succession, at least the, the high Reformed.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And they're gonna trace that through Roman Catholicism. They're not going to trace it through like either the east split.

[B]

I've never heard of a Reformed person who believes in absolute succession, so I don't even know what that means.

[A]

Oh, interesting. All right, maybe this is some niche view. I guess the second question, I mean.

[B]

Maybe an Anglican Calvinist High Church Anglican Calvinist would try to claim that's the only.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, yeah, yeah, I've heard that from High Church Anglicans or Reformed Anglicans even, but I've heard it OPC guys, right? Orthodox Presbyterians.

[B]

No, I mean, well, I mean if they want to redefine what the word apostolic succession means, then that's what they're doing. Because there's no Protestants who are classical Reformation Protestants that believe that there's a transmission of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands.

[A]

Kind of in the same way that a Lutheran is going to argue for the historicity and aposticity of the Lutheran Church.

[B]

Okay, but that's not what I just said, right?

[A]

No, I, I'm, I'm recognizing the distinction. Maybe I'm just.

[B]

Then it's not apostolic succession, it's redefining the terms to make Protestantism in continuity with some made up traditions. Just like they do the same thing with nice, you know, constant politician creed where it says one holy Catholic apostolic and they redefine that to mean the invisible church.

[A]

Yeah, I'll just concede that. It's like redefining. No problem there. So the second question would be. I've seen maybe. I obviously need to read more about Eastern Orthodox resources on the sovereignty of God. But it seems to me that like certain historic views within the Eastern Orthodox can be consistent with like maybe 4 point or 3.5, you know, tool of affirming Calvinists. Do you agree or disagree?

[B]

No.

[A]

Okay, which of the points, like do you flat out reject? All.

[B]

All of them.

[A]

Fair enough. All right, I'm not going to take up too much time. If you ever want to have like a formal debate, I DM'd you, so thanks for the space.

[B]

Well, how about right now?

[A]

Not with me. I'm not good enough at this. I. I have other people that I, I can talk to or link you up with. Again, I DM'd you.

[B]

Who?

[A]

I mean, you want their names?

[B]

Is it somebody with an audience over a few hundred followers?

[A]

Yeah, a couple of them, sure. Jonathan Speaks would be one of them.

[B]

And how big is his audience?

[A]

I'd probably guess around 5, 600.

[B]

No, thanks.

[A]

Thanks for your time.

[B]

Again. The Twitter spaces are for 4, 500, 2, 3, 5000. I'm not doing any formal debates unless you have a large following. I didn't work my butt off debating a thousand goobers to debate all the top atheists and Muslims to spend all my time debating a bunch of 500 follower people who want to chase clout and grow their audience. So that's why you get the Twitter space and they don't come here because all they want is a big audience. Judd, Are you there?

[A]

Yeah, I can hear you. It's real quiet. Can you hear me?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Hey, I don't know why your volume's super low on my phone, but I'm here. Okay. I had a question for you. So I'm a Protestant, I'm a evangelical and I've been inquiring into orthodoxy and it's really fascinating stuff. I'm trying to learn as much as I can. The thing that I am having a hard time really understanding is your guys view on Christ's sacrifice when it comes to the, the shedding of blood and the Old Testament sacrificial system, you know, that's really deeply ingrained in Protestant view of salvation.

[B]

And literally. So what I'm going to say is, what I'm going to say is. Go watch the video. Protestant penal substitution. J. Dyer. So we've literally covered this probably 500 times. It comes up in every open space. So if you look at my clips channel, you'll find multiple things on psa. Not trying to be rude. I'm just like. It's like probably a thousand times we've responded to that. Go ahead.

[A]

Hello.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Hey.

[B]

So also Protestant here, very disgruntled Protestant.

[A]

Would like to go Eastern Orthodoxy. But my wife has voiced some concerns.

[B]

About Yalls Mariology of Holy Theotokos.

[A]

And do you all see her as totally sinless, like she has never sinned once in her life, or is that she is the most pure, most blessed and like. I get all that part. But y' all can make the contention that she's never sinned ever.

[B]

Yeah, she's a spotless virgin and God's grace preserved her from sinning. Gotcha. And so that would be a, A.

[A]

A, A stumbling block for my wife is that she would not be comfortable saying that Mary Polytheotokos is sinless. She would say that she's most pure. That's fine. But she would have the jump. The issue of making the jump too sinless.

[B]

What do you, what do you recommend? I mean, I made a whole video on the importance of Mary and I would say that, you know, if, like, if, if all the other doctrines are true in Orthodoxy, it doesn't make any sense to say, but I'm not going to submit to this one that I don't like or disagree with, like, if it's a package deal. So to me, it's perfectly befitting that if she's the new Eve, she would be like Eve. And instead of being a fallen creature in the sense of actual sin, she would be preserved from that, like Eve would have been had she not sinned. So I think it's a consequence of her as the Mother of God that she was preserved from that so that she could be in that intimate, special role of being, the one that gave birth to the Son of God and gave to him his human nature and so forth. But if we think about sin as a specific act and not as a state of being as most Calvinists and reformed people do, they think of sin as a state of being. It's not. It's defined as James, excuse me, by James, as an action of the will. That's another reason why infants aren't, quote, sinners. Because infants don't commit actual sins. They don't commit sins of the will. The only sense in which an infant is, I quote sinner is that they are deprived of the grace of Eden and they are fallen. And so they have they feel the effects of the sin? And sometimes Paul speaks of that whole class of human beings under the descent of Adam as in sin. That does not equate to them being actual sinners. It equates to them having the effects of sin. So this is. And literally no one believes this anymore that infants are damned except Calvinists. Roman Catholics don't believe that infants are. Have inherited guilt. Maybe Lutherans do. I'm not sure. But there's literally no one else that believes this except for Calvinists. So you're not. You're not going to be Orthodox or Catholic if you believe that infants have actual sin, which is kind of stupid if you think about it.

[A]

My first point is when we look at Jesus, did Jesus use tradition in the way that you would envision it in your definition of tradition?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Could you show us that?

[B]

Well, he specifically.

[A]

Could you give us the Eastern Orthodox definition and then show us.

[B]

He specifically said that the word of God was himself and not the books to the Pharisees.

[A]

No, you. I. You're. You're not listening to me.

[B]

All right, here we go.

[A]

I'm asking you to give me the definition of Eastern Orthodoxy. Understanding of tradition.

[B]

Yeah, it's the full revelation, whether contained in the written text or the oral preaching of the apostles. How's that?

[A]

Okay.

[B]

The. The faith, once we're all committed to the saints.

[A]

Yeah, no, I. I think you've still not given a full definition.

[B]

All right, so go make more YouTube videos.

[A]

I want to know your thoughts of filioque.

[B]

Okay. Go ahead.

[A]

Yeah. So, yeah. So do you. What's the Orthodox position? Do y'.

[B]

All.

[A]

Do y' all deny that there's any procession of the Holy Spirit through the sun?

[B]

No, there is a procession through the sun, but it is not his existential hypostatic origin.

[A]

Okay, but if it's the case that the Holy Spirit. If it's the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. Right. Then. Then what really is any difference between the Orthodox position of filioque or not?

[B]

Because that's not the position that's laid out at the Council of Lions in Florence. That position says that there's a double eternal hypostatic principle from the Father and the Son who function as a single principle of the origin of the Holy Spirit. And that's something that we could never accept because it gives to the Son the unique hypothetic property that identifies the Father.

[A]

Well, you would. You would agree that there's going to be a distinction between being begotten and being preceded.

[B]

Right. That has nothing to do with what I just said.

[A]

Well, yes, it does, because the Catholic, like, like you said, a Catholic position is going to be that the Father and the Son is the one principle that the Holy Spirit spirates from.

[B]

There's nothing that two persons in the Trinity share, as the Cappadocians say, that one lacks. And so you've created a dyad, so you reject it. I've created a dyad because the Father and the Son are a unit of principle of power and causation that the Spirit does not have. So that's an imbalance. That's a dyad over.

[A]

But that's, that's what distinguishes being begotten or the Son being begotten and the Spirit being preceded. Right. Because of the amount of people that takes, that takes part are the amount of persons that take part in preceding the Holy Spirit. Right. At least in the Catholic view.

[B]

Right.

[A]

We can make the case that the Holy Spirit truly is preceded and not just begotten right from the Father.

[B]

So you're repeating Roman Catholic apologetic, pop apologetics, that doesn't even address, like, the level at which we're talking about this question. So can you repeat to me what my argument was?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Your argument was that, well, you pretty much just laid out our position. Then you said that, oh, I've created a dyad because it's going to be like the two Persons, the Father and Son being the one principle in which. Right. The Holy Spirit pretty much originates from or gets essence from. Is that, Is that your position?

[B]

And why is that a problem?

[A]

Yeah, I don't see the problem. That's the thing.

[B]

Why did I say that? Why did I say that's a problem?

[A]

Well, you said, you said it was a problem because I created a dyad. Right.

[B]

And why is that? I said specifically, there's a reason why.

[A]

Yeah, because the Father and the Son is the one principle.

[B]

And why is that a problem?

[A]

You tell me.

[B]

Okay. I mean, I'm trying really hard to be patient with you guys, but, like, I literally stated explicitly what the problem is, and you've come with, like, level one understanding, and you want to debate it, which is fine, I don't mind doing it. But did it ever occur to you, did it ever occur to you to maybe read some of the arguments on this before you went to debate it?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, I know. So I, I what?

[B]

But you can't restate my argument? So you're not, Are you not listening to what I said or you just didn't catch it? You want me to state it again?

[A]

Well, your position on the matter would be that the Father is the only principle. Right.

[B]

And who said that? Anybody in church history?

[A]

Well, I mean, I'm asking you, do.

[B]

You know of any famous Church fathers that were involved in the ecumenical councils that maybe said that?

[A]

I know Church fathers that believe in filioque.

[B]

Do you?

[A]

Yeah, Augustine. Do you accept that or do you deny that?

[B]

No, I mean, I don't accept his teaching. No, it's wrong.

[A]

Oh, oh, so he does. So he does accept fully.

[B]

Okay, absolutely.

[A]

But he's a saint in your church.

[B]

Do you really think that these are owns that we haven't addressed these arguments? Probably 500 times. I mean.

[A]

I mean, that's. I know the copium that you guys use.

[B]

So let's. Let's get into that. All right, you want to do this? Let's do it. What council confirmed the doctrine of the Trinity for the universal Church?

[A]

The Council of Nicaea. No.

[B]

So you don't even know the first of this. You don't even know level one of this debate. It's the second chemical council. Who are the three Fathers that are the most important of the second economical council?

[A]

The second was the second.

[B]

So you don't know anything and you're trying to debate.

[A]

Are you talking about Constantinople? What does this have to do with filial.

[B]

Exactly. So you don't even know the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity that's outlined at Constantinople 1?

[A]

I don't know. I. I mean, I. Is it like monarchical, trinitarian?

[B]

Correct? Yes. Yeah, yeah. And that's not a filioque doctrine because tell me what the hypostatic property of the Father is.

[A]

The hypothetic property.

[B]

So you don't even know the basic Cappadocian terms. You don't even know our basic position, and you're trying to argue with me and call it. You're calling it Coke? Tell me.

[A]

I was about to tell you.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The hypothetic property of the Fathers, that he's the one. That again, he's the. He's the one principal. Right.

[B]

Oh, he's the one principle. But you just said a minute ago that you agree that the Son is also a co. Principle with him. So he's not the one principle. How many principles are. How many principles are there?

[A]

We believe there's one principle.

[B]

No, you don't. You believe there's one and you contradict it by saying that the Father and the Son together are a principle. That's two.

[A]

Yeah, that's that's one principle. It's not gonna be two principles.

[B]

You just said the father is a principle, and then you said the father and the son are a principle. That's two. Can you count?

[A]

You're the father and what? What are you gonna use this, this. This argument?

[B]

Are you this dumb? You don't even know our position. You said. You said the father is the principal, Right?

[A]

The father and the son are the one principle.

[B]

At first you said the father is the principal. I asked you his hypostatic property. You said it was to be the principal. That's his type. You said that. Don't lie. You said that.

[A]

Yeah, no, yeah, yeah, I understand that the father is going to be the principal.

[B]

Oh, then there you go. Now you cont. Because the father and the son together are now a principle. That's the problem. So that's two principles.

[A]

I never negated that. The son is a principle.

[B]

If the father is the principle and the son also with him is also a principle, that's two.

[A]

No, I don't know. They're both the same principle.

[B]

Okay, now you're a model. Now you're a modalist. Because now you've said the father and the son together are a principle. That's modalism.

[A]

How does that follow?

[B]

Because that's the argument that the Cappadocians made against the Eunomians. You're confusing hypostatic properties with common powers and energies.

[A]

Where are you getting this notion from?

[B]

Have you read Basil on the Holy Spirit? Have you read Basil against Eunomius?

[A]

I was saying Basil against the whole. Say Basil against what?

[B]

You would be. I thought you knew all this stuff. You're not familiar with those works.

[A]

Can you repeat. Can you repeat what you're saying?

[B]

Basil on the Holy Spirit and Basil against Eunomius. Have you read those?

[A]

I guess. Unamius.

[B]

Unamius don't even know the word.

[A]

What does St. Basil say against.

[B]

Anonymous? So you're not even familiar with this. You're not familiar with any of this stuff. You're a clown. That. Because it shows that you're not familiar with the literature and you're trying to debate it.

[A]

Why that's not true.

[B]

It is true. You don't know the terms. You're demonstrating your ignorance of the whole scope of this.

[A]

Oh, oh, because I pronounce the term wrong.

[B]

No, it means that you're not familiar with the literature. You couldn't even tell me two of the works.

[A]

No, no.

[B]

Have you read this? Have you read this literature? Dude, I just have you read this literature?

[A]

The literature on, say, Basil against unanimous Yunamius? Why does that matter? Can you show me where?

[B]

Because it shows that you don't you. It shows that you're not familiar with the topic. You don't know how to pronounce the basic terms right.

[A]

No, no.

[B]

You're about to cry, dude. Like, look, it would behoove you to go and understand this stuff before you try to debate it, and you did come here to debate.

[A]

Can you please just show me where St. Basil refutes Filiokoy or argues against Philly? Okay, go ahead.

[B]

Who's the. Who's the sole cause? Who do they argue is the sole cause?

[A]

The sole cause? What do you mean by sole cause?

[B]

So you're not. Again, not familiar with common terminology throughout all the Cappadocians? Sole cause. Father is the sole cause. The Capadian victim. Shut up. Shut up. All right, you're gone.

[A]

All right, he's running. He's running.

[B]

No, you made a fool of yourself. I'm not running from you. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[A]

I'm asking what's the meaning?

[B]

I'm trying to explain it to you. You won't. Shut up. Shut up and I'll tell you.

[A]

That's fine.

[B]

Sole cause. Their dictum is anything that is a hypostatic property is unique to the persons and non communicable or shareable. Anything that is not a hypostatic property is common to all three. That's a Cappadocian dictum. That's why the filioque is wrong according to the Cappadocians, because the Father's principle, what picks him out, his hypostatic property is to be sole. Solar fount principle.

[A]

Yeah, that doesn't negate filiokley at all.

[B]

It does, because it means that what he has that marks him out cannot be shared. That's the Capadian dictum.

[A]

Well, yeah, well, the thing that marks him out is his relation.

[B]

No, it does not. Relation itself is a predicate, not a subject. Persons are subjects, not relations.

[A]

Yeah, but that's the thing that. How does that.

[B]

So you would know that if you've read the Capidosian. So you have no knowledge of this topic and you're trying to debate. I'm asking, what does Persona at relatio mean?

[A]

Oh, now he wants. Now he wants to speak Greek.

[B]

Persona at relatio is Latin, you idiot.

[A]

Oh.

[B]

And I don't know Latin. I don't care about Latin. But this guy just showed this is the arrogance of these people. No knowledge of these topics. They want to debate it. Persona at relatio is Aquinas's dictum, Person is relation. So the first person to say that is, that I'm aware of is perhaps Augustine, but at least for sure Aquinas.

[A]

I think most orthodox or Catholics don't believe that salvation is by grace through faith. And I make the, I'm going to make the claim that it is based on the Scriptures.

[B]

Well, we believe that it is, but we believe that those words mean different things from you. So it's not that we reject the Scriptures or don't believe in salvation by faith or by grace, but we don't believe that it's a legal standing that's imputational, which is based on a heretical trinitarian theology.

[A]

Like a legal standing. The word justified is a legal term, is it not?

[B]

Yeah, but it's not a purely fictional imputational. Legal standing, that's what I'm saying is impossible because nobody in the ancient medieval world were nominalists and you need nominalism to have that position.

[A]

What do you mean by nominalists? Sorry.

[B]

Right. So the reformers like Luther relied on medieval nominalists like Occam and Bile to figure out how it was possible for God to declare people to be a legal state that they weren't ontologically that thing. So that's nominalism. That is a name only position, a legal standing position that doesn't reflect an actual ontological change in the being. And since nobody in the ancient and medieval world were nominalist until Occam, that means Paul didn't teach your view.

[A]

Doesn't it say Romans 4, 5? That's, let's see, let me pull it up here.

[B]

So you're not going to address what I said, you're going to blow past?

[A]

No, no, I, I, I'm trying, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to ignore it.

[B]

Have you read Alistair McGrath?

[A]

No.

[B]

What? Is that funny? I don't understand.

[A]

No, I'm just, I'm not laughing at you. I'm just saying. No, I haven't.

[B]

Well, but you laughed, so I don't understand why it's funny.

[A]

I don't, I don't know. It just chuckled. Dude. Okay, I'm a little, I've never done one of these before, so it's a bit new to me. Maybe more of a nervous laughter.

[B]

Okay, well, McGrath is one of the most famous modern Oxford Protestant scholars. He wrote a book called Eustachia Day and In that book, he admits that nobody in the ancient and medieval world until about 1500s had the idea of justification by faith alone.

[A]

Okay, here, let me pull up some quotes here. Then didn't. Let me pull up some quotes with some church fathers.

[B]

Okay? Yeah. Church fathers who believed in absolute succession and the real presence. You think they taught justification? You're going to pull up a bunch of quote minds that don't say what I'm saying. They say what you think they're saying. So you're going to read into these church fathers who also teach the necessity of works, and they teach the real presence. You're gonna try to quote mine them to prove the Protestant doctrines.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Like, I used to be a Protestant, dude. I did all this. Don't you think I know what you're gonna do? What do you.

[A]

What do you mean? I'm just trying to put out a position here, and I don't. I don't know, like, I'm not particularly.

[B]

So in Romans 4. Let's go to Romans 4. When Paul. Who does Paul. Where does Paul cite in Genesis and Romans for.

[A]

Okay, let's just read it here. Romans 4, 3, 4. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

[B]

Where is he citing Romans.

[A]

Excuse me. Genesis, chapter 15, verses 3, 6.

[B]

Right? Now tell me this. In the Protestant view, in terms of the transition from wrath to grace, as the reformer spoke of, when was that? In Abraham's life.

[A]

For Genesis, chapter 15, when it says he believed God.

[B]

Thank you for refusing. Yes, thank you for repeating. Thank you for refuting Protestantism. Because it's. Come on. It's Genesis 12, where Abraham first believes and does several chapters of good works before Genesis 15. So you just refuted Protestantism in Romans 4.

[A]

No, because you read. You read the rest of the chapter. It's talking about Genesis, chapter 15.

[B]

So you literally heard nothing I said. And you're not addressing there. You don't even understand the argument. You're blowing past the argument.

[A]

Maybe I'm just not quite getting what you're saying. Right.

[B]

You're not correct. Do you want me to state it again? Sure. The transition from wrath to grace should be Genesis 12, not 15. So by Paul citing Genesis 15, you refute the Protestant position.

[A]

I'm sorry, I don't follow that. Because.

[B]

Oh, my God.

[A]

Hold on, hold on, dude. Hold on. Because in Genesis 12, the command was just get out of your country. It wasn't that he'd be a father of many nations, or if it was like he didn't completely comprehend that. And it records in Genesis.

[B]

Did he believe in faith? So this is. This is.

[A]

Let me present my position.

[B]

You're. You're not. You're ignoring the argument.

[A]

I'm not trying. I'm not trying.

[B]

Yes, you are. You're inventing a bunch of bull crap about. No, he wasn't inventing anything. So he wasn't justified. No, you're not. You don't even know what the word of God is. You don't even know. So he does three chapters of good works, but he's not justified yet. This is how silly your position is.

[A]

Okay, yeah, yeah.

[B]

So God didn't make a covenant with him.

[A]

Now, to him that worketh is the reward, not.

[B]

So you're not going to listen to the argument. You're just going to start quoting the scripture.

[A]

You're not listening to me. You're not letting me get my point.

[B]

Did Abraham believe God in Genesis 12?

[A]

Okay, let's just. Let's just quote that. Let's go to Genesis 12. Let's just go there. That's in Genesis 12:3.

[B]

Does he build an altar in verse eight and call upon the name of the Lord and worship him?

[A]

All right. Genesis 12. Get the out of thy country. And from the kindred and from my father's house unto a land that I will show thee. I'll make of thee a great nation. I will bless thee and make thy name great. Thou, thou, and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee and curse in the curse of thee. Oh, sorry about that. I will bless them to bless thee and curse and the curse thee. And then these shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abraham departed as the Lord has spoken unto him.

[B]

Does he build an altar in verses 7, 8, 9. Worship God.

[A]

All right, I'm getting there. I'm getting there. All right, all right. I'll just go to verse eight. And he removed from fence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the West.

[B]

Verse 7, 8, and 9. 7. Excuse me.

[A]

I didn't. I didn't hear stuff.

[B]

I said 789. He builds an altar.

[A]

Dude, I didn't hear you. So my mistake. And the Lord appeared unto Abraham and said, unto thy seed will I give this land. And there he built an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him. Okay. Yeah.

[B]

Oh, but he's not saved yet, Melissa.

[A]

Well, when was he declared righteous by God? You tell me. When. When does the Bible say that he was declared righteous by God? When did it count for right?

[B]

I'm showing the stupidity of your interpretation of Romans.

[A]

Okay? That's an assertion. That's an assertion that you're making. You're not really backing it up, though, so.

[B]

I'm backing it up by the fact that. Shut up, Shut up. Shut up or you're gone. In verse. Okay, in verse, in verses 7 and 8, he worships the Lord. God obviously accepts this worship. He. He acts in faith for the next several chapters until Genesis 15. So this refutes your stupid argument that he was saved in 15. So Romans 4 doesn't teach the Protestant view, it's just your assumption that it taught the Protestant view.

[A]

Okay, let me ask you this, Roman.

[B]

Now you're going to change the subject.

[A]

I am not. I am not going to change the subject. I'm trying.

[B]

So was he not saved for three chapters of good works?

[A]

Can I ask the question?

[B]

You're not. No, you're. Was he not saved?

[A]

No, because it doesn't say he was declared right.

[B]

Okay, so, yeah, you're an idiot. So wrong. So. So God. So he does all these good works and he's not saved to just save your stupid position.

[A]

It's not a stupid position.

[B]

It is. It's nonsense. So he's not. He's not lauded for his faith when he goes into Egypt in 14.

[A]

What are you talking about? Specifically 13.

[B]

So when he. 14. When he. When he. After the battle of the Kings, when he tithes to Mela Deck. He's not even saved yet. For his. He's lauded as a faith champion in Hebrews 11, when he's not even saved. This is how stupid your position is.

[A]

Okay? That. That's what you're just going to do? Just like just dunk on somebody who's never done this before. So.

[B]

Oh, so now you're playing victim? When you add a bunch of bad arguments, you're ducking on me. I've never done this before. No, you're not. No, you're not. No, you're not. It is retarded because. So in. So you're saying that he's a enemy of God when he's lauded for tithing to Melchizedek in 14.

[A]

No, no, no.

[B]

Okay, yes, you are saying that. Why are you lying? If he's. If it's not. If he's not saved, you are. Because if he's not saved until Genesis 15, then he's still under God's wrath and an enemy of God in the protest position. What are you saying? Oh, my goodness. That's your position.

[A]

Can I at least state what I was going to say or.

[B]

You said that he's not saved until 15. That means in this story that I said declared righteous. Is that not what it means to be saved in the Protestant view?

[A]

Okay, all right.

[B]

You're all. You're a liar. You're so dishonest, man. You are being dishonest. Why are you even here doing this? I'm ridiculous, dude. So there you go. So Abraham is over here tithing. He's lauded in Genesis, in Hebrews 11, as a model of faith after he goes to battle to save lot in Genesis 13. And he's lost in all this. How stupid the Protestant position is. And then he plays victim.

[A]

I've never done this.

[B]

So he's lauded as a model of Faith in Hebrews 11 for what he does in Genesis 14, but according to this guy's idiot Protestant argument, he's still not saved until Genesis 15.

[A]

Okay, I'm trying to understand some of the issues that you have with the Reformed or the Protestant world. And am I right in understanding that your view is specifically a rooted in epistemology, that the Church has determined the canon? Or I guess I'm trying to figure out how the ontological aspect relates to that. If there's a. If the Church determine Scripture via the Holy Spirit or if. If the Church is recognizing the canon in a passive sense. And so much seems to. To hinge on that. And I'm just looking for some clarify.

[B]

I mean, it sounds like a lot of speculation. Like you don't think we can go and read the people who determine the canon. So you're talking about active and passive. And like, so. So what? The six Ecumenical Council Soul, the people that wrote the absolute canons were passive? I mean, that doesn't make any sense. What are you talking about?

[A]

Oh, okay. So if you would recognize me as such, I. I was a. A convert out of atheism. However, I wouldn't be recognized as orthodox, so you might dispute that. So when I come into it, I've already come into a place where people are saying, here's the canon. And then later I discover the orthodox are saying, well, actually it's this. There's a few other books involved. And so when I kind of come into it, I'm looking, okay, why do the Protestants say this is their canon? Why do the Catholics say X, Y and Z in this? And likewise.

[B]

What are you talking about, active and passive? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, but like this whole history. Go ahead.

[A]

Yes, because I. What I was Hearing from the reform position, that is, it sounds like they assert the ontological distinction first that God determines Scripture.

[B]

Okay, how do they know that these are assertions? I mean, I can cite you in church history specifically when and where the canon was discussed, debated and determined. For example, the apostolic canons, which most Protestants don't even know what that is. The 85th apostolic canon, for example, mentions Maccabees and Sirach. And when The Quintessex Council 692, which is affirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787, mentions the canonical Scriptures, it mentions the apostolic canons. Protestants don't know anything about that. They never talk about that. Almost never. So all of this assertion of active, passive, determined. I mean, this is all Protestant gibberish. I can tell you the exact places where in the history of the Church these decisions were made.

[A]

Right, right. And I wouldn't dispute that, but what seems to be. Have taken place is that heterodox pressures seem to back the, the historical church into a position of saying we must formally make this declaration. And.

[B]

Yeah, which means that they weren't operating on sola scriptura prior to that.

[A]

Right, right. From what I understand is that Protestants are arguing that sola scriptura is the recog. Is. Is the primary documents on apostolic public authority. And so it almost sounds like it's just a matter of method that these are the primary documents by which we judge all subsequent tradition and, and dogma or anything based off of it. And so they're always referring to this specific canon as the. The means by which we judge all this. And so what I've come to learn is that a lot of books that other traditions are saying should be included in the canon. I've come to it later as an understanding through Protestants that these are important documents, but that the canon is basically man's recognition of something that's already ontologically prior, so that the authority of God.

[B]

Yeah, this is missing the whole point. So nobody is denying that the texts were inspired and they have authority from God. The point is that it's a post apostolic decision that's very late, that involves human beings that Protestants think were fallen, fallible and didn't have the Gospel that made the decision of what makes up that canon. And it's not just that. It's also, you don't have a time machine to go back and get Paul's autographa. You're trusting that those apostolic sees and churches with apostolic succession, those bishoprics, preserved those Pauline or Gospel texts which sometimes don't have their author listed. Like Matthew doesn't tell you what, who that is. How do you know that it's Matthew the apostle? So you're relying on the tradition of those churches to preserve and hand them down as part of the canonicity, as well as things like liturgical inclusion. So it's missing the point to say that, well, the Church is just recognizing what God inspired. Yeah. Was that recognition decision inspired or not? And this is why RC Sproul, for example, says, oh, well, the Bible is an. A fallible collection of infallible documents. And when we had a Protestant in here the other day when we were debating this, he says, oh, yeah, it could be changed, it could be wrong. Oh, so the word of God is subject to new discoveries as to what can be taken out or perhaps added to, which means that the whole position is nonsense.

[A]

Yes. And I think what you're saying is it. I largely agree with everything that you're saying. I guess I, I'm trying to just narrow the scope of the disagreement, reading it and I'm trying to figure it out, because when I hear, when I hear you discuss it, it sounds good. It sounds like, yes, there's this epistemological concern that, that takes precedent, and I don't know if that provides a certain psychological security.

[B]

Well, okay.

[A]

Or, or, or if, if there's a, an ontologist, logical priority and we're just not sure, but we know that there has to be this higher divine recognition or is it impossible that we would have failed to, to grasp the canon?

[B]

I mean, all of this to, I mean, the whole point is just become orthodox. Like, what's all of this yapping and speculation about all this and that? Like, what are you talking about? Like, it's the church historically determined the canon, and it is the Orthodox Church, and you can go read those people.

[A]

And so you would equate all of the, all of the, the church history. Because when I, when I read church history, I, I hate to say this, but it almost seems a bit messy. There's guys that are saying this guy is a heretic on that position. And, and so I, it seems to be that the community is pretty broad, but the one thing that seems to be central is they all have a, A deep reverence for Scripture, even it, even prior to a, A completed canon, a formal recognition.

[B]

Yeah, but that has nothing to do. Yeah. In no way does that prove the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

[A]

So maybe I'm misunderstanding the Protestant doctrine because it seemed to be.

[B]

Do you believe that it's a fallible collection of Infallible books.

[A]

You know, to be honest, I'm not sure if it's a fallible collection. I. I seem to agree with the way it developed in church history.

[B]

So it's an infallible collection. So you would assign infallibility to a decision of the church post apostles. That's not Protestant.

[A]

Well, I'm not. I. I don't know how to make that declaration of that firm commitment as to whether I think it was fallible or infallible.

[B]

If it's not fallible, it must be infallible. There's not a whole lot of options there, is there, between those two? They're mutually exclusive.

[A]

I'm just not. Yeah. And I just don't feel comfortable saying one way or the other. It seems like I don't see any reason how, how, or I don't have any.

[B]

Okay, so to how it.

[A]

How it forms.

[B]

If you don't have an objection, then you don't have a problem with the apostolic cannons?

[A]

I'm sorry, I would have to familiarize myself specifically with apostolic cannons.

[B]

So you're not familiar with that?

[A]

Are you talking about a specific recognition, like a collection of documents?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Okay. Unless maybe I'm misunderstanding the name or something.

[B]

Right. So the Apostolic Cannons are some of the earliest forms that the collections of church law. Canon law. I'm not arguing that they're infallible because they're called apostolic canons. I'm just pointing out that Canon 85 is a list of the canonical texts that the ancient church in the 4th century considered canonical. That list is what's cited at Trollo in 692, which is normative for the Orthodox Church. And then Trollo is affirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787. So this is the basis for the Canon of Scriptures according to the universal ecumenical Catholic Church in the first eight centuries. This right here. So perhaps we should familiarize ourselves with the apostolic canons, because as I read through these. Oh, turns out this is all orthodox stuff. Presbyter, bishop, deacon, episcopate, Eucharist, heretics, excommunicated Eucharist, on and on and on. Nothing to do with Protestantism. And what's the 85th canon? The list of the canonical scriptures, including the Deuterocanon, not the Protestant canon.

[A]

Whenever you're talking to a Protestant. And they are, like, very adamant that, like, every single thing that we need to know about the Christian life and faith is in Scripture and that we don't need, like, the tradition and stuff like that. How do you respond to that?

[B]

Well, if everything that we knew was in Scripture, then the list of the canonical books would be in Scripture. If everything that we needed to know is in Scripture, then we would have, you know, all of the later necessary doctrines that are formulated, like at Nicaea, about the Trinity, the deed of Christ. They would have also been explicit in the Scriptures, but they're not. So where was that? For example, where's the New Testament statement on how we worship explicitly in the Church? We know from Leviticus when Nadab and Abihu are killed, that God takes the worship very seriously. So did he not tell us an actual pattern of liturgical worship in the New Testament? If Protestantism is true, that would be the first thing that we have in the New Testament is a clear list of how we're supposed to worship. And yet there is no liturgical pattern explicitly given in the New Testament. This never occurred to a Protestant. God's willing to kill Nate, Ab and Abahu over this question, but he doesn't even give the church an actual pattern of worship. Well, dude, they were supposed to go into the church, the house church, bro. They were supposed to make it up and get a smoke machine and the laser lights. And then Paul the Apostle went and got a bunch of the laser lights and he put it into the house church, and then they was doing whatever they wanted. Dude, that was my boomer evangelical voice there. So.

[A]

Hi, Jay. Hey. I wanted to ask a couple questions. So I was taught by my Prof. That in St. John of Damaskine's work on holy images, he states that the saints are present inside the icons. This would imply that the saints are actually omnipresent because you could have, like, multiple images of St. Luke, and he would be in all of these icons. So my question would be, can only holy beings, or I guess like Elohim is probably the best word to describe it, be omnipresent?

[B]

So the saints are deified, and so they're present via the divine energies because they're deified. So they're not present because they're God in a natural, in a sense of divine nature, but they participate in the divine energies, which allows them to be deified, which allows them to be, in a mystical way, present. And that's why, if you read Revelation 5 through 9, when John sees into heaven on the Lord's Day, he's on earth, but he's in the presence of the heavenly liturgy. So we believe that the liturgy is heaven on earth, literally. And God is able to do that because he's God and he can bring heaven down to earth in The Incarnation. So, no, it's not omnipresence to be in. Outside of time and space.

[A]

So what do you mean by. I'm just confused by what you mean by deified. Like they. They're given. Like a. Not a Godhead necessarily, but like.

[B]

Well, Jesus says in John. Jesus says in John 17 that he came to give us a share, a real participation in the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. Jesus says, I have said, ye are gods to the Pharisees. And Peter says that we become partakers of the divine nature. So that's deification, that's theosis. You really do become immortal.

[A]

Okay, I guess I'm just confused between what you mean by like, immortal versus like, the understanding of like, being in multiple places at once. For me, I guess with. Confused me.

[B]

So again, are the saints in heaven on earth or not in Revelation 5 through 9? Huh?

[A]

They're not. They're not on earth, are they? I don't remember.

[B]

Well, how is there an altar on earth in revel in Hebrews 13?

[A]

So they're in heaven.

[B]

Heaven comes down to earth in the liturgy, is what I'm trying to say.

[A]

Oh, okay.

[B]

When John in Revelations 5, 9, is praying in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, he's doing the liturgy, and he sees into heaven, and he sees the heavenly liturgy opened up, that he's in heaven. So heaven comes down to us in the liturgy, and that's how the saints are present.

[A]

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I'm still kind of confused, but it's okay. I have to read more.

[B]

So we'll read Revelation 5 through 9 and think about that as the heavenly worship. So service being also on earth, we are raised up into heaven. This is Incarnation. The Incarnation brings heaven to earth and us into heaven. Heaven is already here. It's. It's now. The kingdom of God is on earth. It's the church. It's the liturgy. So when Paul says in Hebrews 13 that we have an altar that we eat from, that the people who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat, he's saying, that's the same altar. What I'm arguing is that that's the same altar that John sees in heaven when he sees the Lamb slain in heaven. Why is there a Lamb slain in heaven when John sees that, if Protestantism is true, the sacrifice is already complete, bro. There's no continuation of that or perpetuation of that. But yet John sees into heaven, and he sees the Lamb slain in heaven, and he sees an altar, and he sees saints praying for the church on earth. There's saints under the altar praying for the. The saints, the offering, the prayers of the saints on earth to God. Do you understand what I'm talking about or not?

[A]

Yeah, kind of. It's. I don't know.

[B]

What I'm saying is that in Hebrews 13, Paul talks about there being a altar on earth where we eat. And I'm saying that that's the same altar that's in heaven in the Book of Revelation that John sees. You're not. You don't understand what I'm saying?

[A]

I mean, kind of the thing that I'm kind of foggy on is whether, like, heaven is on earth right now. Because when you hear like, oh, he will wipe every tear from their eye, people still weep today. And so how can we.

[B]

Yeah, that doesn't mean that. Right. And that's why Paul says that even though he ascended, we do not yet see all things subjected to him in Corinthians. So there's a process working this out in history, even though the work is already complete.

[A]

Okay, where does Paul say that?

[B]

Right now we have First Corinthians. I'm going from memory. First Corinthians, Right now we see. We do not yet see all things subjected to him, even though he is ascended. Is it First Corinthians 15.

[A]

Okay. Yeah. I was just wondering, because my prophets.

[B]

Basically talked First Corinthians 15, 28. We all now, when all things are made subject to him. Excuse me, it's Hebrews 2 where he says that not even though all things are subject to him, we do not yet see all things in history subjected to him, but all things were subjected to him when he rose on the cross and sat at the right hand of the Father. So he began to reign when he ascended, Right?

[A]

Yeah. Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I. I think my. My Prof. Was just really throwing me off because we were learning about how basically in Mesopotamia, they believe that God would reside in an idol that you made. And then she made the illusion that the orthodox believe the same thing, and therefore it's, like, incongruent because of the fact that you can't have, like, multiple idols of a human. And then there would be. The human would literally be inside the idol, and then that would cause. That made me a little confused because I was like, what the heck? So.

[B]

Well, even in the Old Testament, if you read the Benjamin Sommer book, he admits that the Old Testament shows that there's a fluidity to the bodies and the embodiment of God throughout the Old Testament in terms of the theophanies, even to the point of multiple objects in the Old Testament like the oak of Mamre or like the stone that's anointed that Jacob lays his head on. Like all of these are examples of sacramental things even in the Old Testament. So that's preposterous. And even in terms of the Old Covenant.

[A]

Well, basically the argument was that God, although he was kind of omnipresent in the beginning, he began to reside in the tabernacle and now he resides in the Eucharist, which I don't necessarily fully believe because I think he's entirely omnipresent, but he's also literally inside the Eucharist as well. So it's just really confusing.

[B]

This is false either oars. So yeah, I mean, I'll let you talk just a second, Father Deacon. So the false either or is because Jesus didn't cease to be omniscient. If you read Philippians 2 when he engaged in the kenosis, right? So Philippians 2 is a kenosis passage where he willfully limits himself to be in a mode of being born as a human, as a man, right? So he's in the form of God. Paul says in Philippians 2 he never ceases to be divine or loses omnipresence, but he's in a special mode of his presence in the Incarnation. And it's the same with the church or the sacraments. Go ahead, Father Deacon.

[A]

Well, I was going to say even just kind of Greek metaphysics, you can get an idea. For example, there's one form of triangle, right angle triangle or something like that, that transcends space and time or something, let's say. But there's many instances of that one form in particular material instantiations. Just kind of like you were saying, like the mode. So this is why it's really important. Important. It's not completely analogous, but this is why it's really important. Whether it's what you were talking with the individual prior or this a notion of kind of Greek metaphysics and philosophy kind of it breaks up and clears the way from these things being kind of hangs hang ups. Do you see what I'm saying? So what I'm saying is that that particular triangle, even though there's one form of triangle, doesn't mean that the triangle itself is omnipresent. Do you see? Does that make sense? Yeah, sort of.

[B]

So there's many triangles, right? They're all triangles. That doesn't mean Triangle is omnipresent, right?

[A]

Yeah. Okay. Well, because I. I believe that crisis in the Eucharist and also God can be outside of the Eucharist at the same time too. But, like, obviously my prophet's kind of up to lunch on some things, which is okay. But. Yeah, that was just what really confused me about it because saints at the end of the day are human and not God. So I wanted.

[B]

Well, but they're deified.

[A]

Let's do another either or. Jay and I always bring this up.

[B]

That.

[A]

Christ is God in one sense is omnipresence. Right. He transcends all space and time, is the divine person and having the divine essence. But Christ walking on the road to. In Jerusalem is not in Athens. Do you see what I mean? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So it's. It breaks this kind of either or. It's like, well, he has a special mode in the physical person of Jesus of Nazareth, such that he is actually in Jerusalem and not in Athens, while at the same time in a different respect, because he's divine, he is omnipresent. And so likewise with this with the saints too, is that, yeah, there's a physical, but they're also united with, With. With God. And so they have properties that would transcend normal physical properties being in the particular icon or when they were living, etc.

[B]

Yeah. Again, Revelation 5 through 9, you'll see that the saints on earth are, Are aware of and know what's going on with the church militant, the church on earth, and they pray for them. So again, it's the Bible itself that's telling us that the saints in heaven are involved in the earthly worship of the church and know what's going on. And so Protestants just don't typically think of the Book of Revelation as a liturgical book or that it's describing an actual heavenly worship service.

[A]

I was raised Protestant, and I've gone to some Orthodox churches. And the most difficult thing for me to logically reconcile is the involvement of Mary or the Theotokos and the principle of intercession. I guess my feeling about it or the way that I interpret that is that it seems like it implies a kind of lackadaisicalness about God or that his judgment or decisions to, you know, affect somebody's life could be changed through the kind of like, willful suggestion of this other being.

[B]

I mean, does that, does that not happen in the Old Testament when God tells Amos that had you not interceded for Israel, I would have destroyed them? But because you're my friend and I respect you, you interceded for Israel. I choose to answer your prayers. So it's that God wills to descend or excuse me, to condescend, to respond reciprocally to our prayers. And I just pointed out to the previous girl, Revelation 5, 9 shows the saints in heaven praying for the church on earth. God wills to hear their prayers, their incense offered in heaven up to him. The angels are offering the incense of the prayers. So it's a false assumption that it's either or. As if God could only do it through direct causal action, like he can't will to interact with human beings. I mean, God could have chosen to not have any apostles and just sent down a book like Muslims think or something, but he chose instead to have apostles. And Paul says that he's a co worker with Christ. Is that Paul detracting from God's glory because he's a co worker?

[A]

If that were the case, I guess I'm just curious when, when it says that no one comes to the Father except through me. I guess that's somewhat in reference to like salvation or something like that. But.

[B]

Well, all the, all the saints are part of the communion of saints and so they're coming to God through Christ as well. So it's not apart from Christ. What do you mean?

[A]

I guess I mean like us as people who are not saints, just regular people. It seems odd to have like a alternative route to have your life like again improved upon or something given that one particular verse, like no one comes to the Father except through me.

[B]

So does that verse exclude all the other verses? I mean in when, in Revelation 8 when the angels are offering the prayers of the saints, is that contradicting the verse in John 14:6?

[A]

I mean, I don't know. That's why I called in. Like I said, this is, this is a little.

[B]

So we don't take one verse and we don't. So. So it's a Protestant heretical approach to take one verse and squeeze all the other texts into that one. You have to harmonize all the text.

[A]

Okay. Because salvations. The source of salvation is the Trinity. It's triadic that that's going to. That that notion of community is going to be played out in the world too. You're going to see salvation triadically within a community, in people too. And not just two people or you know, one or one. Cause let's say, well, it's just, it's just God. So I would, I would say it's this notion of just me and Jesus is actually anti Trinitarian.

[B]

Yeah. And that's A great point. It is. It's not trinitarian. Also, it's like when Paul says to Timothy, you know, if you act well, you will save those around you. Oh, I guess he's detracting from the salvation in Christ. Paul. Paul's telling us that Timothy is an idol because he saves people and Christ doesn't. No, it's obviously it means through Christ you're co workers with God. Paul says. Paul even says that he fills up in his body the measure of what is lacking in the suffering of Christ.

[A]

Notice how is law. It's really Islamic.

[B]

It is Islamic. That's a great point. Yeah.

[A]

Hey, so I've got an argument with a couple of scriptures analogy to illustrate the point, a specific relevant historical event and a follow up question and a bonus question. So if I could, I'd like to go through all of that and then get your feedback.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

So the argument would be that the normative authority of the churches has limits. Specifically, the churches do not have the authority to remove other churches from the church. The analogy would be the churches are parts of the body. Christ is the head of the body. The right arm cannot decide to remove the left arm. Only the head can decide to remove a part of the body. Couple of Scriptures. Matthew 16:18. I will build my church. Revelation 2. 5. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand. A specific historical event that's relevant be the Council of Chalcedon. So with regards to being in or out of the body, what is the condition of the Coptic Christians immediately after Chalcedon? Specifically, are Christians who have no idea of this meeting impacted by way of their bishop and our Christians who do not understand the distinction impacted by their ignorance. I could do follow up question or keep going.

[B]

All right, first of all, it's a false analogy that because Paul says to the Corinthians that the hand can't say to the arm or the eyes or whatever. I don't need you to equate that to no normative authority excommunicating anybody in the universal church that doesn't follow from that. The only ways by which people would be excommunicated is by living authorities who have the ability to excommunicate, which actually Paul says to the Corinthians put out of the church those who are disobedient and act unruly. So Paul actually tells the Church of Corinth that they can and should excommunicate certain people. The church consistently does excommunicate people from the first Century to the third century, including local synods that talk about excommunication, including the apostolic canons which mention multiple things which are liable to excommunicate people. So it would really make no sense with all that data to take the text about the hand saying to the arm, I don't need you, and to apply that to. There's no such thing as excommunication in terms of normative authority. The Council of Nicaea certainly thought that they had normative authority to excommunicate the Arians. So again, I don't think that follows from Nicaea. You raised a separate question about whether or not God would hold everybody accountable who didn't know what their bishops were up to or never heard of Chalcedon. No, I don't think that everybody who, the day that Calcedon happened, like it's a blackout and suddenly they all are without grace and damned because they had no idea what was going on. God's not a bean counter. He's not a. A weird legalist like that. I think that just like, for example, with the Roman Catholic Church, I don't believe that everybody in the Latin west is automatically damned. In 1054, they had no idea what was going on. They didn't immediately all adopt a double eternal hypostatic procession that takes many centuries to actually filter out into the totality of the Roman Catholic West. So, no, I think that even up into very late, there were probably many people during those time periods in the west who are saints and who are in heaven. We may not necessarily have them as part of our orthodox liturgical calendar, but that doesn't mean that they're not in heaven. So multiple different questions and sort of positions that are, I think, a little conflated going on in that argument. So I'm not sure whether that had to do with post Chalcedon.

[A]

Yeah, that was just, you know, an analogy to maybe illustrate the point, but you definitely got the point. Follow up question, if I may. Are there limits to normative authority regarding excommunication of any kind? Based on what you just said?

[B]

Sure, yeah. I mean, to John Christensen, wasn't he sent out of oak? He was falsely excommunicated. So, yeah. That doesn't mean that everything a local bishop does is going to be right or authoritative. I mean, right or infallible, I should say.

[A]

I guess I'm thinking more like, not specific excommunications, but more like wholesale, you know.

[B]

What do you mean?

[A]

This, this whole church, like you mentioned the Aryan thing, but specifically like Chalcedon, it's a disagreement about Christology, I guess. And so I guess, is there a principle in play?

[B]

Where.

[A]

Is there a principle that guides what's valid? Excommunication. And what would be invalid? Excommunication, like things. Christology is definitely grounds for excommunication. Practice of ordination is not grounds. Like, is there kind of a guiding principle there of things that escalate to that level?

[B]

I don't know what you mean by practice of ordination.

[A]

What I mean, just a random example. I mean, it could be.

[B]

So I. I think that the way it's supposed to work is that an orthodox bishop is the highest authority, strictly speaking, and he interprets the canons for the churches under his jurisdiction and applies those rules in an informed, wise way, not in a legalistic, rigid way, but in a way that is for the best of the flock and for their salvation. So could he abuse it? Yes, there could be an abusive bishop, but I think the idea is that eventually it would be rectified in time that God would vindicate those who were wrong. For example, Chrysostom's erroneous condemnation by the son of the oak or whatever. Eventually he gets vindicated. So beyond that, I don't know how to answer the question of, like, what the extents of a bishop's errors could be. I mean, they could be anything from heresy to incorrectly interpreting the canons. I mean, all those things are. Father Deacon, you're a deacon. How would you answer this question about the limits to normative authority amongst bishops and synods?

[A]

Could you say. Just repeat it again. Sorry, I was writing three different arguments to three different people three different times. My quantum time machine.

[B]

Yeah. As Father Deacon, he's had much more involvement with bishops and clergy and. Than I have. So he would be much better for this question than me.

[A]

I think I. Vague. I think I know what you're saying, but go ahead. So, yeah, it would just be limits to normative authority. I think I understand. You know, within a jurisdiction, the bishop is the authority that decide what happens. And then your local bishop. Yeah, If. If a whole congregation under a bishop is collectively in error, then the only other place to defer to is a collection of bishops, which would be a council. Yeah, I mean, just. Just think about it. We do have a secular notion of normative authority, which, interesting enough, is based off of Byzantine law. So our legal system traces back to principles in Byzantine law. But you certainly have a normative authority, and that just means legally binding. So at what? At a county level, I guess you have judges and then your state has A supreme. A state supreme court. And then your nation has a. Then at the highest level is scotus. This is the United States. Yeah. So to take. To take that analogy, I guess it comes down to interpretation because you could argue that the Constitution lays out the Bill of Rights. Those things are not up for debate under the normative authority of. Well, it's a different issue. So of course the Constitution's open to interpretation, but it's a separate issue. The difference is my interpretation isn't law. So I might get it right, I might get it wrong, the judge might get it right or wrong, but the difference is it's binding on me. Now there's an appeals. Well, what happens when the judge does bad law? It's still law. You can't just say, well, that's not what the con. The law says. I don't have to obey it. You're under the law of that judge. There's an appeals and it goes higher up. So likewise in the church, of course, in some, like, we're all in the same epistemic situation and you could make yourself more privileged or underprivileged, depending on certain concepts and lack of evidence or looking at stuff. I mean, you get the idea that one could be in a better position to make a correct interpretation or worse. But the issue is. Yeah, but is there anybody that can lay this out as law? That's what normative authority means. So if a bishop gets something wrong and they have. Let's even think the priest in some sense is. Has a normative legal authority over you, they can get it wrong. Where do you go to settle this? So there's a different issue. Like what's. How do I know the right answer versus how is it legally or cleasily settled? And you go up a court of appeals, like you go to the bishop. What happens when the bishop is getting.

[B]

Well, he would be subject to the synod. Right.

[A]

He's subject to the synod. So that's a local. What happens if, you know, the synods, it eventually would go to the. A larger right. Eventually. All the way up to Oikomena. Right. All. All the entire church. In which case there we see through scripture the Holy Spirit is present and works. And we would say at that level there's an infallibility, but there's a separate issue going on, like how do we resolve disputes? How does the legal structure work within the church? Well, it's a court of appeals. It goes up, but it doesn't mean that it's not. It's not law. Just we have different levels of norm. Like some things are more binding. Right. You can keep going up and things at lower levels can be challenged. And ecumenical council cannot because it's the entire church and that is the Holy Spirit. There is Christ.

[B]

Or nowadays it would be some type of Pan Orthodox Synod, but that cannot easily be done given the geopolitical political situation of the time. And there's been situations in the history of the church where geopolitical situations prevented ecumenical councils as well. So that's not unprecedented. But theoretically there could definitely be a Pan Orthodox Synod or there could be some. You could even have a synod that does something or states something. And then if the rest of the Orthodox world eventually accepts it, it could be normative.

[A]

Yes, because I want to make it clear that it's not just simply a mechanical robotic level. If I just do these things and say these words or put these people together, then it makes the magic happen.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And that's when the Holy Spirit. It's Jay's right. Obviously it cannot be an ecumenical council if it's not in line with theology of the Church, if it's not received by the Church. If the Kata Holos is not working as Kataholos, it can't be Kataholos.

[B]

Yeah, like the Palamite synods were Byzantine councils, which the entire Orthodox world basically, as far as I'm aware, affirms. So for all intents and purposes, we can call those ecumenical councils the 8th and the 9th, even though they may not technically be oikum based councils. In terms of the whole imperium, the rest of the world over the centuries has adopted those. For all intents and purposes, they're infallible. Pan Orthodox Councils.

[A]

Yeah, thanks. Appreciate your time. Last question. I wrote a small book on symbolism and film. I'd like to send you a copy if you would like. What's the best way to send you something like that?

[B]

You could send me a DM and I'll give you a PO box if you want to send me a book. Appreciate that, thanks. I want to remind you guys too that coming up in what seemed six days, we're under under a week. Big awesome live event January 19th, here in Florida, Tampa. It'll be our first movie convention. We're going to this horror convention. I'm invited to speak on. On the dark secrets of horror movies. So I will be giving esoteric Hollywood presentation. The first 30 ticket holders. It may be sold out. If it's not, I'm not sure exactly where we are on tickets. First 30 get a free Copy of Esoteric Hollywood signed. If you don't get that, you can always get another copy. We, we will be at the convention which is all day long. That's a separate event from this dinner packaged event. So if you want tickets to my lecture and my talk that night and I think there's a panel discussion, there's a bunch of fun stuff going on. B.G. cumby. I have rumor that B.G. combie will be there so you can also come meet some of the other cool dudes. BG is a very cool dude. So there's the tickets. All right. I'm about spent. Dude. We've been, we went for six hours, man. I don't know if I can. I gotta go eat, man. Father Deacon, thank you so much. I'll give some of the secrets, I'll give you some of the super chats. And thank you to Rachel and Andrew for sending so many people today. And thank you to Rachel for that big fat super chat. Elias, $5. Oh wait, we read that POTUS $3 does the Moscow Patriarch and have less problems than other churches. I don't even know how to count up. Every jurisdiction has unique problems and issues. I don't know. Would you put problems in MP on par with ror? I've never been to an MP church. I don't follow. I don't know that much about what's going on in the mp. I'm in a Rokore church so I know about more localized. You know, we had an issue of a person in roar in Miami going to the ep. I mean that was a huge scandal. I. I don't know, man. That's. I don't follow. A lot of church drama, so I have no idea. North Country Nerd, $1. The Oriental has a channel. It's nothing but misinformation. Yeah, I'm familiar with those guys. Ronnie Howard, $5. I love your content. I got an OCA church. My family in Mexico are Jehovah's Witnesses. Oh. How am I supposed to reconcile the religious differences with the threat of being excommunicated by them? Well, Jesus says, you know, he that loves family, mother or father more than me is not worthy. So I think at a certain point, you know, you might be called to that. I'm not saying that you're necessarily going to get. What do they call it? Shunned by them. I don't know.

[A]

But I mean, I just get dirt on my family. I'm like, you go that way, get.

[B]

Some dirt and blackmail them, bro. No, I'm just Joking. I mean, you know, if they're, if they shun you, then you can't control that. You know, if they shun you for believing the deity of Christ, I mean, then, you know, count that as a blessing. Jesus says. But I don't think we have to work to try to get people to be mad at us. I think, you know, if you just affirm the deed of Christ, they're going to be mad at you no matter what. Nick Bond $5. How do I locate the link about Anglicanism? I mean, it's the video on my channel about Anglicanism. I put it in the chat. MKG $5. Did you do. Have you done any full videos of Carl Young? I've not done full videos. There was a crazy dude who lost his marbles and like went ape on me for he was a Jungian dude. It's funny because I bring up Aon, which is what you're talking about, because in Aon, Carl Young says that Jesus is Antichrist. And they're the same. They're flip sides of the same coin. So this Jungian Gnostic dude has a meltdown when we start debating this. And he's like, you've never even read Young. And I'm like, I'm quoting you from Aeon. His it's a A I O N and I think it's an actual book. And this dude just has a complete meltdown. But now actually the other day, because I'm writing Esoteric Hollywood 3, I needed to. I'm rewriting the Donnie Darko chapter and the, the Box chapter, the Richard Kelly movies. And I needed to reference a bunch of Carl Young. So I actually went and read a bunch of Carl Young that I hadn't read. So I have read Carl Young in the past, but now I've read even more, more Carl Young. And in the chapter on Enema he says, I'm just talking about a bunch of ancient Gnostic stuff. So yeah, of course, of course it's Gnostic stuff. And of course he gives evil substance. Absolutely. Damas. $5. What are the church Father. Why is it the Church Fathers never really exegete the book of Revelation, but every preacher feels like they have it down to a science pride and delusion. Curiel $1 presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler. It commits the petitio principia or begging the question, fallacy because it advocates presupposing the Christian of theism to prove the Christian theism. Do you have any thoughts on this? Yeah, we've Heard this many times. So the point is that it's not saying that Christians true Christianity is true because I presuppose it. It's saying that every position presupposes. And so the way that we would prove or disprove an argument is by comparing paradigms as a whole to see which ones are coherent, which ones have explanatory power, etc. So it's not doing what these people think doing. Last guy Christian. It does sound like a print a Trent Horn quote, doesn't it? What's up, man? You're on.

[A]

Hi, Jay. I was trying to make the argument for compatibilism in terms of.

[B]

When it.

[A]

Comes to Calvinism and predestination or knowledge. I guess my argument for that would be that as a Christian, I realized that I don't have the knowledge God has in determining whose are his and whose are not. But based on the doctrine, I do trust the faith I have in knowing that whoever I want to, you know, work with, as far as like a brother in Christ. I feel like compatibilism, which would argue against Armenianism, would be a better argument because I feel like with Armenianism you have this, you, it's based on what your instincts think tell you who you can or can't trust. And so that's, that's why I feel.

[B]

Like, I mean, I don't know what. None of this has anything to do with proving or disproving Calvinism because Calvinism is disproven by Christology. Calvinism relies on a soteriology doctrine that's ahead of Christology. Christology is an afterthought and it ends up saying that Christ has to be damned for you to be saved. Do you believe that?

[A]

No, I, I, in terms of Calvinism, it's, it's more, this has to do with eternal, eternal election. So it obviously is salvation. It's metaphysical. It's more of a you determining whether or not you're part of God's elect. And in terms of like our interactions with each other on Earth, you know, it's, it's difficult to.

[B]

Are you arguing for Calvinism? I don't understand.

[A]

Yeah, I'm arguing for Calvinism in the sense that, you know, in my, in my experience, you know, I've gone through, you know, especially during the pandemic, I had a lot of, you know, betrayal and just a lot of people that abandoned me. But, you know, grasping on my faith in Christ, I realized that those things were predetermined and that moving forward in order to, in order to display works that go along with faith, I have to trust my Christian brothers.

[B]

Okay, but that sounds more like a personal issue. And I would just say go check out my theological critiques of Calvinism. So I'm sorry that you had betrayal, but I don't see how personal betrayal and then accepting that God was the direct cause of all those events somehow proves Calvinism seems like a very subjective route to take. But I'm arguing that Calvinism has many, many mistakes that are more severe than whether there's free will versus predestination. I'm talking about, like, trinitarian errors. I'm talking about Calvin teaching that Christ was damned in our place. Okay, that's anti trinitarian. That's way more serious than, you know, the other things. And I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'm sorry that you had those bad experiences, but, hey, look, everybody has bad experiences, so. But we can't let that determine our theological stances. MKG $5. I saw the clip. This is what actually sparked my interest. What? What clip? Oh, the Carl Young guy. Would you consider a full deep dive on the subject of Carl Young on Christ? Well, I'd have to read more. I don't. I mean, I don't know when I'm gonna have time to read tons and tons of Carl Young. Maybe. But I mean, it's like, if he thinks Jesus and Antichrist are the same principle, flip sides the same coin. Like, I don't. I don't even. I mean, like, how much refutation do we need? Like, how much reading of Carl Jung do I have to read to know the. That's nonsense. I mean, like, so in his chapter on Anima, for example, he says, kid you not, he says, oh, the early church banished the mother principle from the Trinity, and it's time to recover that. In my psychoanalysis, the mother principle, that when was there ever a mother in the Trinity? It's literally Bulgakov sociology stuff. Like, what are you talking about? The Mother in the Trinity? Then he says, I kid you not, he said in the anime chapter, he says, let's take some medieval monks that had visions of God as a woman. Why are we. Why should I follow medieval crazy Roman Catholic creeps talking about God as a woman? Literally, that's what he argues. So, like, doesn't. Wouldn't that kind of, from the outset, raise some red flags? Like, maybe I'm not. Maybe this is not like this most profound stuff. Now, I know Jordan Peterson says, oh, he's like the most profound thinker of the 20th century. Or at least Peterson said that a long time ago. And, and those personality lectures. But I mean, I'm not saying there's not interesting things in Crawl Young, because there are. I mean, I think there are archetypes and there's some neat stuff going on, but it's not all this wacko crazy. Like, this is crazy stuff. And you don't have to go very far in Carl Young before he literally just says a bunch of crazy stuff. And by the way, Carl Young is an OSS spy informant. Like, how about that? Calling into question his credibility. Oh, you didn't know that? Yeah, absolutely. He's Agent 488. Look it up. It's in, by the way. I have that necessitarily with three, by the way. But maybe down the road if I read more Carl Jung. I, I did get the, the text, by the way. It's. He has a bunch of works. Where's it at? But I have the, the volume that is his archetypes of the collective Unconscious. And so there's a chapter on the anima chapter on Trickster, There's a chapter on the mother, there's a chapter on the father archetype, I think the son. It's like all, it's all the essential Carl Young stuff is in that book. So maybe that will prove to be something. Actually we probably. I probably should just read that whole book and do a talk on it. All right, thank you guys. My mind is mush. I'm starting to get a headache. So this is just way too much live stream tonight. But hey, it was a lot of fun. We had some wild, feral individuals. It was pretty crazy. Guys, chill out in the chat. Please don't spam. But everybody have a good night. Get your tickets, get your.