Sam Shamoon (2:35)

Because you're a coward now.

Jay (2:37)

So he just calls the guy a coward by saying I'm not going to make a judgment on the apparition. I don't know. And I mean how. Why do you guys still defend this guy? He's an absolute lunatic.

Sam Shamoon (2:46)

Make the judgment.

Jay (2:47)

That is not my point. I'm not going to say anything.

Sam Shamoon (2:50)

Because when I told you Our lady of Zaytun, Our Lady Fatima, Eucharistic miracles and these diverse traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, Oriental.

Jay (2:57)

Okay, so the Orthodox Church has a tendency of not accepting or running with so called eucharistic miracles. So by this very measure that he's talking about, the entire Orthodox Church would be cutting itself off from scam Shamus, ecumenist, ecclesiology. Remember Sam just said if you doubt these visions in these miracles, you're basically a blasphemer. That's what he told this guy. And you're going to be judged for that. Okay, but scam your whole, your whole argument. If the Orthodox Church rejects Eucharistic miracles in Rome, then the Orthodox Church is cut off and damning itself. You idiot.

Sam Shamoon (3:41)

Orthodox you go, how do we know it's not demonic? That's what I want to ask you. Show me. It's mnemonic. Not by assuming what you've yet to prove. That will I reject the filioque and the paper.

Jay (3:51)

No, he is. He's asking you how do you know? And then you're just saying you're a blasphemer and it's demonic if you don't believe it.

Sam Shamoon (4:00)

Totally bad faith and therefore cannot be of God.

Jay (4:04)

Yeah, so my response to that is, is that I. I want to hear your position clearly. Is it that. Are you saying that these miracles are great proofs of.

Sam Shamoon (4:15)

That's one of many proofs which you have not addressed.

Jay (4:17)

So how could it be a proof if it's amongst conflicting sects? The Oriental Orthodox Church rejects almost all of Rome's ecumenical councils and dogmatic teaching. They don't accept the last 20ish ecumenical councils. How are they the same church and they're not in communion?

Sam Shamoon (4:36)

Tell me, explain it to me. What were these apparitions that have been bona fide apparitions done for the Catholic Church?

Jay (4:44)

They're bonafide. By who? The Egyptian government. So my religion is going to be based around the bona fides and the verification of the Egyptian government? Are you serious? Like one of the most corrupt governments in the Middle East. But oh, if they say their apparition is bonafide. It is. This is so or into Orthodoxy. I mean who. Why is it this ban is. Is mentally unstable and actually I don't care that he can memorize a bunch of verses and he knows the flaws in the Quran. He can't reason his way out of a paper bag on basic logic. What he said is just preposterous. What orthodox person cares if the Egyptian government says that a Zytun apparition is real? Are you serious? Church and I mean the Egyptian government has a history of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. This is so stupid.

Sam Shamoon (5:37)

Can you show me a similar miracle for your Eastern Orthodox Church of this magnitude?

Jay (5:41)

Yeah, we don't base the religion on claims of magnitudes of miracles. And also your miracles contradict the Orientals can't be the same church as Rome if they're in schism. And you can't say, well they're not because of ecumenism. Okay, so what happened in ecumenism to suddenly make the doctrines not the same? Did the Oriental church suddenly change all of its doctrines? Did the Roman Church suddenly change all the sessions? Oh, it did. Oh. If it changes doctrines, then it's a contradiction. You say you see the trap that you get in when you go down this route of idiocy, but this guy's a complete fraud.

Sam Shamoon (6:17)

Point one to me.

Jay (6:19)

Okay, so to address the first part of the question, Christ says clearly that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks on. Exactly. This dude knows this. Props to this guy. Counterdox. He knew exactly where to go. Jesus says wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign and a wonder. And you just told me that the true madeup multi ecclesial model that you came up with via Vatican 2 is proven by miracle claims, signs and wonders.

Sam Shamoon (6:49)

So I personally asked for a sign and wonder. That's why you're a son of Satan.

Jay (6:54)

Yeah, he did. So he knows this guy had a good argument and he immediately just calls this guy a son of Satan.

Sam Shamoon (7:02)

Didn't ask for the sign. God gave the sign. So let's.

Jay (7:05)

You're begging the question. How do I know that that's a sign? That's what the guy asked you.

Sam Shamoon (7:10)

Try it again. So when your light and Easter supposedly lights up because that's because you're wicked and a. That's why on Easter supposedly the east north.

Jay (7:23)

So he thinks that the guy is saying that any miracle makes you a wicked because you're claiming miracles. That's not what he's arguing. I actually think this guy's brain damaged. I actually think scam Shamu has brain damage. Brain damage? There's something wrong with him because this guy's asking obviously a very clear, fair question and the first thing this guy does is say, oh, so if you think that anyone that claims that there's miracles is using that, then they're demonic. So you're saying Orthodox church is demonic. The guy's not saying that. He's asking you how do you delineate between true and false claims of miracles and visions?

Sam Shamoon (8:00)

Candle lights up miraculously by the hole of fire. So that means you're a wicked because you want to sign and wonder.

Jay (8:05)

No, we didn't ask for the sign and wonder. We're asking you how to delineate between true and false ones according to my paradigm.

Sam Shamoon (8:12)

Okay, so let's repeat the question.

Jay (8:16)

So see, he's just attacking. The guy doesn't even know what he's asking.

Sam Shamoon (8:20)

Can you point to a miracle of that magnitude Done for your.

Jay (8:24)

How do we know that it's a miracle and that it's what? What's the magnitude measure that tells us a true and a false miracle? So him adding, quote, magnitude to it, it's like, dude, how do I know that it is a miracle first? And you adding magnitude to. Oh, what's the magnitude? Right? Pop pop magnitude. Come on, dude, is his audience all just like Adiq Brown people. Like, who else is in this audience?

Sam Shamoon (8:50)

Church of the same magnitude done for the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Church. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Jay (8:56)

And why is that sort of miracle necessary?

Sam Shamoon (8:59)

Because.

Jay (9:00)

Yeah, exactly.

Sam Shamoon (9:01)

Because when I showed you that one of the signs that God gives these are his churches, you poo pooed it. You didn't want to address it. So I'm not going to flip it.

Jay (9:09)

Yeah, but that's the thing in question. You're begging the question that this is a sign of his true church. He's asking you how do we know this is a specific miracle that's valid that we should follow on you.

Sam Shamoon (9:20)

What has God done to show you and me that these Orthodox church has the fullness of the truth?

Jay (9:26)

Well, yeah, so the magnitude. Right. I'm thinking of a community like magnitude from community. Pop, pop. Right. So the magnitude level. Well, if it's at a magnitude level of over 5,000, then it's a true miracle. Right, and what, how do you, how do you determine miracle magnitude by the way? Pop up.

Sam Shamoon (9:52)

I'm still waiting for an answer. You're doing the dodgeball and I'm gonna cuss.

Jay (9:54)

No, you did a two quoque, you fat slime.

Joe Heschmeyer (9:57)

Ball

Jay (9:59)

two questions. It's two questions you're asking. He asked you a question and then you turn it back on him because you don't have an answer. And you're nasty ass cat apartment one. You're the hell out of.

Sam Shamoon (10:10)

You stupid bastard. You can't even answer questions.

Jay (10:12)

Look out, look. See this guy? This guy is like unhinged, literally an insane person. And just because he memorizes a bunch of texts, people think he's like, oh, the guy is living in a disgusting cat infested hovel. He's a fat slob and you think he's like the greatest apologist. He's a mentally unstable. This guy's insane. Tengu, $10 somebody does beats unreasonably fat. Yeah, that's all the dudes over in our. In our sphere, dog. Muta with the she, muta with the shia tonight. Here we go. This actually could work though. On the dance floor, Sam Shamoon. He's at the dance club, he's single, he's got a little bit of dust on his shoulder because he didn't clean up his nasty ass cat apartment. Sam Shamun is on the dance floor. Ladies orbs all are welcome. Please dance with Shamoon. I've got moves, moves, moves. Senchu, sencho, sencho. All you pretty orbs on the dance floor Muta with the shia tonight all you pretty orbs on the dance floor. I see a lot of boards below me tonight. Big shapely orbs. I'm convinced this, this dude has toxoplasma gondii. With all his stupid ass cats and that nasty apart. Could you imagine what that compartment smells like? Like all his nasty ass rotted bowls of cereal sitting in the back. All that junk, disgusting junk food he eats. And he wonders why he's fat, eating like the worst diet imaginable with all the freaking tricks bowls behind him, just rotten back there, cats hopping around. Could you imagine what that apartment smells like? And then what does he say? Oh, miraculous orbs appear. I mean, if you're in that audience, it's because you don't have any discernment. You can't discern between. Oh, wait a minute, this guy's actually insane. Like he actually thinks that the dust balls floating around in his nasty cat apartment, freaking fuzz balls. And that the cats have hawked up so he thinks they're miraculous orbs that appear like he's a freaking ghost hunter or some.

Sam Shamoon (13:25)

If the orbs are confirmation, I believe they are. It's not for the purpose of making

Jay (13:31)

me so notice what he did here. Just like these claims of miracles prove his made up apostolic Christianity of Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Orientals all in the same made up church. He's arguing to his dumbass audience that the cat dander that floats around his disgusting apartment with the plastic BPA bowls behind him, giving him the man boobs, that's a miraculous manifestation that God is with him. Yes, he says. He. This is what he says.

Sam Shamoon (14:04)

So if the orbs are confirmation, I believe they are.

Jay (14:07)

They're confirmation that God is speaking through Sam. That's what he's saying. He's a charis. He's still a charismatic loon.

Sam Shamoon (14:13)

So if the orbs are confirmation, I believe they are. It's not for the purpose of making me puffed up or you idolizing.

Jay (14:22)

This isn't. Does everyone not recognize a person who has mental problems? I know we're in the domain of religion, and so maybe there's more people drawn to the sphere of religion that have mental problems or something like that. And I understand we're all broken people. Yeah, I get it. But like, how much discernment does it take to realize like, that's not an orb. It's a dust ball, you idiot. And why would he keep pushing this? Right? And I think he stopped pushing it now because everybody made fun of him. Me.

Sam Shamoon (14:55)

It's a reminder. As weak as we are, as sinful as we are, as imperfect as we are, the Holy Spirit Almighty is still working in and through us because he loves us and he's here. So if the orbs are confirmation, so.

Jay (15:13)

And I said, does that work for you?

Sam Shamoon (15:16)

Who's having a meltdown?

Jay (15:18)

Here's him and his stupid message to me where he blasphemes the divine energies, which is a New Testament teaching. Listen to this lunatic. The what he sends on dms who's having a meltdown.

Sam Shamoon (15:29)

Keep foaming, dude. We're going to call you out. We're going to get you. Don't worry about it. Down, girl. Get some more energies. Maybe I'll help you, You stupid bastard. Like I said, thanks for the receipt, queerbait.

Jay (15:49)

I'm gonna show them who ran from William.

Listener/Caller (15:51)

Down, girl.

Jay (15:52)

Caleb. So go give yourself some more energies. This guy's a joke, dude. It's not a serious person at all. But I mean, that's what it takes to be, you know, to gain an audience is to not be a serious person. So it's definitely appeals to a lot of low, low, low tier, low IQ people. Tingu, what's up? Appreciate that, Al Scinaric. $10. What's up, man? Dubstep says, have you read Future Shock? I have it over here on the shelf. I've not got. Thank you, Dubstep. He says, have you read Future Shock by Toffler? I have not gotten to it yet, but I will. I do have it. I saw that you mentioned Power Shift a while back on Alex Jones. Congratulations on Tuner K. Yeah, we want to get to some of those. Next up, though, for the elite books is we're going to finish the rest of Old Boys, so we'll probably finish that up. I'd say I got the last third. I've only got one third of it left to go, so we'll probably finish that in the next couple weeks and then we'll move on to the next elite text. I'm not sure what I want to do next. I've got several. We might do Toffler. We'll see. Making sure I didn't miss any super chats over here. Chance says for $10. What do you think about the people who say that TAG is laughable? It's a subject laughable to real philosophers? Well, I could say that's the no True Scotsman fallacy. Because if that's the argument that a person is going to use against me, then I can use the same argument and say, well, every real philosopher knows that TAG is a great argument. So that's why it's called the no True Scotsman Fallacies. Because it allows you to say, well, we all know that real philosophers don't accept tag. Well, that's not a good argument, because I can just say, well, we all know that real philosophers love tag. See, that's a fallacy. So it really doesn't matter what number of philosophers like or don't like tag. If someone is open to the idea of God existing with a hard time believing, how do you convince them of Orthodoxy in general? I would say they need to go to the liturgy because it's going to go beyond rational intellection. What's up, man? I'm you. Oh, I'm sorry. We had a guy's question. Let me go back to that one about Romans I missed. I forgot his question. How do I understand Romans 11:28-32 is Orthodox? Let's see. Many people, many of the people of Israel now enemies of the good news. All right, I don't. I don't like this. Let's get out of this. Nlt. Let's go back to the NKJV. Concerning the Gospel. Jews are your enemies. For your sake. But concerning the election, they're beloved for the sake of the fathers, for the gifted calling of God are irrevocable. For as they were once disobedient, they now obtain mercy. So even now these have been disobedient. Well, this is the text I usually refer to to point out that Paul in Romans 11 is teaching a future conversion of the Jews because of the Gospel, they are enemies. But God still has a plan and a place for Jews in the future to convert. Most of the church fathers, when they comment on this passage, they basically say the same point that I'm saying, which is that there is a future conversion of the Jews. John Damascus talks about. Cyril Alexander talks about it. Many church fathers discuss a future conversion. And that's what the earlier passages say when he says, when the Jews convert, it will be like life from the dead for the world. They can be grafted back in through Christ, obviously. Drunken. You want to. You want to call in or you want. You want to talk? Can you hear me? Finally? All right. I don't know why I went to that guy. That was my own fault. Plane. What's up? Plane. Unmute. Plane guy. Joe. Joe. Mama. What's up?

Listener/Caller (20:17)

Hello.

Jay (20:18)

Yep.

Listener/Caller (20:19)

Hey, Jay.

Jay (20:19)

How's it going? Good, man. What's on your mind, dude?

Listener/Caller (20:22)

Yeah, I just want to say, a

Jay (20:24)

huge fan of your work.

Listener/Caller (20:25)

You've definitely helped release me from the prisons of Protestantism. So huge favorite. Just want to say thank you for that. This is not really a theological question. This is more so geared towards politics. Just want to get your advice. So I'm currently, like, in the military as a, like a National Guard guy. And with. With this whole Iranian war and stuff, I'm considering getting out of the military. I guess you could say this is theological because my question to you, what would be the orthodox, I guess, position on someone being in the military, specifically in America, in our current state? Because from what I've observed and kind of like, my belief is that our military isn't really geared towards, like, defense. It's more so like, world policing. And just want to get you, like, your thoughts and opinions on that, on should somebody who's in the military now stay in or get out or.

Jay (21:25)

Yeah, well, again, there's going to be issues of conscience. There's not just an orthodox position on military service. There's nothing inherently wrong with military service. The Council of Nicaea dealt with that question and said a long time ago that you can be a Christian and be a soldier. Soldier. So, you know, there's not really a. A position on that. But you know, if you have issues of conscience and if you have a disagreement with the policies and you don't want to fight wars for Israel, then yeah, I would not join the military. Or if there is a way out, you might consider that. But again, that's. It's really going to be also an issue of conscience. Infamous one $5. If David is related to Ruth, how does 1 reconcile Deuteronomy 22 implying he would be excluded from the assembly? What's. I'm not sure what this argument is. Deuteronomy 22:3. You shall see your brother's oxen and sheep and keep going. If you see it going astray, your brother is not near you, bring the oxen to your house, restore it to him. This is basically saying, don't steal and give your brother sheep knocksin back to them. You must not hide. Like, I don't understand this. How does this text. Did I pull up the wrong text? Let me get my boomer glasses on. Oh, excuse me. Deuteronomy 23. 3, 23. He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the Lord. One of illegitimate birth shot enter the simile. Lord, even to the 10th generation shall enter the assembly of the lord. It's a 10th generation. Descendants. Well, how many generations is it from David to Christ? What was the argument? If David is related to Ruth, then would he be exempted from. Well, it might be that, I mean, God can override those ceremonial commands. So if God chose David, that would overrule the fact that Ruth is in his descent or he descends from Ruth. Because also, I mean, Jesus is also a descendant of David through Ruth as well. So. Go ahead. I thought somebody was there. I've never heard this argument. I'm not sure this is an interesting. Oh, wait a minute. I know what it is. So an Ammonite or a Moabite that's not allowed to enter the assembly of the Lord. This has to do with like they can't come at all into the assembly of the Lord, right? Because. But, but it's not talking about a convert, right? Ruth would count as a convert, right? She would be a Moabite who believes. Right. But I guess you're arguing even if she believes, she's not allowed into the assembly. My, my first thought would be the prohibition is about Ammonites and mobites in general. However, if they are converted and believe, then the prohibition would not apply. That would be my first thought. What do you guys think this is? I'VE never heard this argument before. Y' all are talking about wine moms. We're here trying to figure out Hebrew genealogies, and y' all are here talking about wine moms. We are totally at variance with the subject matter of the chat. If David's related, how do we reconcile? Yeah, my guess would be that Ruth is a believing Moabite, and so the prohibition would apply to the pagan Moabites. Right? Because if you look at the rest of the passage, it goes on to say, you shall not abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian. The children of the third generation born to them might enter the assembly of the Lord. So this might just apply across the board to any Edomites or Egyptians just coming in, even if they're not a believer. But if they do convert, like you have, you know, Old Testament Egyptians, for example, who. There were Egyptians who left with the Jews, so presumably they would be believers. Right? What do you guys think? This is an interesting question. Into the furnace. What's up?

Listener/Caller (27:05)

Hey, what's going on, Jay, congrats on the 200k. Hopefully it takes you half the amount of time to get to 500.

Jay (27:11)

Hope. So what's on your mind?

Listener/Caller (27:14)

Got a quick question for you. I recently had a debate with a Protestant guy and I wanted to get your take over how you would answer this question. He basically said that you can see that God's providence over the Reformation and the fruits of the Reformation by looking at the fruits of how Western civilization was able to flourish after the Reformation. So he saw that as sort of like a affirmation or a confirmation that the Reformation was a good thing. So I was just curious how you would tackle that. I tackled it differently, but. Or I tackled it in a way, but I'm just curious how you tackled it. How you would.

Jay (27:51)

I would refer right back to the video that I just played where I covered the Testament to me as a new. Because, I mean, the way that people interpret the course of history, this is very subjective and arbitrary. You get the same line of argumentation from Roman Catholics who say that, look, the papacy is the source of Western civilization. Look, the papacy, look, Roman Catholicism won in the numbers arena and it has more wealth and power than orthodoxy. So. So it's true. I mean, these are ridiculous subjective lines of argumentation which have nothing to do with whether or not the Gospel is true or false. So, for example, Augustine in the City of God, he's arguing against the pagans who said that the only reason that the. That Rome fell is because it adopted Christianity, had we not adopted Christianity, we would have had material civilizational success. And Augustine writes the whole city of God to say, you can't argue providential blessings and cursings because it's arbitrary. And furthermore, you can also point to. Why would we not, for example, point to the insanity of heresies run amok in evangelicalism and the fact that really the radical Reformation is what ended up winning in the long run. That's what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that today's quote, Christianity in the west is really just the radical Reformation and the west is collapsing. So why can't I just arbitrarily say, oh no, the west is actually collapsing because of Protestantism and the radical Reformation.

Listener/Caller (29:21)

One of the, one of the ways that I sort of answered that question, and I think that's a good way to go about it. One of the things I said too was that none, not much of any of the like benefits of the Reformation has specifically to do with the doctrines of the Reformation had more to do with the political.

Joe Heschmeyer (29:37)

Yeah.

Jay (29:37)

How do you, yeah, how do you demonstrate. How do you demonstrate that the Reformation distinctives are the source of civilizational success?

Listener/Caller (29:46)

Right. And then, you know, people would point to Calvin. Right. In Geneva. But then again, that's, it's, it's, that's a, that's, that's a microscopic look.

Jay (29:53)

Yeah.

Listener/Caller (29:54)

And the claim is more of a, you know, Western civilization as a whole. So I think it's an unfair sort of comparison.

Jay (30:04)

And by the way, what do they even mean right. When they say, quote, Western civilization is. That's also ambiguous too. It's like, does that mean Rome? Does that mean Byzantium? I mean, is that Russia? Like what exactly counts as, quote, Western civilization?

Listener/Caller (30:16)

Yeah. And I think in their context, they're thinking about, you know, in my discernment of what they're trying to say is more so gearing to the British Empire and you know, the American.

Jay (30:27)

Okay. Yeah. You know, so basically it just lines, it just lines up with modern Anglo Protestantism. That's what is Western civilization.

Listener/Caller (30:36)

Right. But that's not all of it. Other thing too. Did you see, you know, whiskey wheelbarrow Wilson gets smoked by Joe Heschmeyer in this debate, I think yesterday who. That he had.

Jay (30:49)

Hold on, who are you talking about? Whiskey. Whiskey wheelbarrow. Who are you talking about?

Listener/Caller (30:56)

Doug Wilson.

Jay (30:57)

Oh, Doug Wilson.

Listener/Caller (30:58)

Whiskey Barrel Wilson. But Joe Heschmeyer and him did a debate yesterday on Solar Scriptura.

Jay (31:05)

No, I did not see that. Is there a. Not going to watch this whole thing? Is there a clip that Is like so his.

Listener/Caller (31:13)

So Joe Heshmeyer's exam cross examination to Wilson I thought was really interesting because Wilson didn't have any sort of concrete answers. He more so just defaulted to some of the.

Jay (31:27)

Okay, okay, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. So I'm pulling it up here. You're saying Joe's cross examination is the best part?

Listener/Caller (31:36)

I think so, yeah.

Jay (31:37)

Okay.

Listener/Caller (31:38)

It's 20 minutes. You don't have to do the whole thing. But that was kind of where I think the debate really kind of crescendoed.

Jay (31:44)

I can't stand Doug Wilson, so I don't care for what's his face either. But I definitely dislike Doug Wilson more than other goober here. So let me. Let's play this on 1.5 and let's hear this part. How impressive all of your different variegated opinions on many things are.

Michael Lofton (32:03)

Try to keep us keep bringing us

Jay (32:04)

back to this issue of Solar Scriptura and all the kind of supporting information.

Joe Heschmeyer (32:07)

Again, it's quite impressive as it is exhausting.

Jay (32:08)

How does it relate to the main topic of Solar Scriptura?

Michael Lofton (32:11)

You will begin your cross examination.

Joe Heschmeyer (32:14)

Yeah, I feel admonished.

Michael Lofton (32:16)

Exactly. All right, number one, you said that there is a means within Protestantism to achieve unity.

Joe Heschmeyer (32:20)

Yes.

Michael Lofton (32:20)

What does that mean?

Joe Heschmeyer (32:21)

The Holy Spirit and you.

Jay (32:23)

Is this the area you're talking about?

Listener/Caller (32:26)

Yeah. So right around there, I forget the minute that it all takes place. But it's a 20 minute cross exam. I understand that that whole.

Jay (32:33)

Okay, yeah, we're playing like I gave

Michael Lofton (32:36)

the example of you and Gavin because you're two people I respect as Protestants who I think are serious, intellectual, faithful people trying to follow Jesus Christ and committed to what I understand to be the exact same principle.

Jay (32:44)

By the way, what is it with like Protestant and Roman Catholic bros like this? Especially the Protestant, like, they're. Why are all the Calvinist bros and dudes like this fat dude look, this dude's got is like triple level spilling over. Like, what is going on? Like, can we not? And why is Doug Wilson so freaking bloated? Dude, the guy's about to pop.

Joe Heschmeyer (33:05)

Earlier this evening, I forgot who did it, but there was an appeal made to the first part of Ephesians 4, where we are to labor to maintain the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace. There is a unity that all true Christians have that is simply given.

Michael Lofton (33:14)

Sure.

Joe Heschmeyer (33:14)

It's a. I sit next to someone on the airplane, find out that they know the Lord and we can have instant fellowship.

Jay (33:18)

Right. How does Doug Wilson know that? Because some guy Sitting next to him claims to know Jesus, that they have the same faith. This is really low tier.

Joe Heschmeyer (33:27)

It's just a given reality and I

Michael Lofton (33:29)

think it's probably worth addressing. I, I realize there's more than doctrinal unity.

Jay (33:31)

I mean, I could sit next to a Mormon and not know that he's a Mormon. And the Mormon could say, I believe in the Trinity and the, and the sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ and we love him at my church. And I would immediately think, oh, if I'm Doug Wilson, this is a fellow Christian man and we can have fellowship. But then I learned that by every one of those terms he means something way different than what I mean. So it's like, it's just so low tier. I'm surprised that actually, I'm not surprised because actually I think to have more success these days with scam, Shamu, Trent, scorn, all of these goobers out here, like you will actually have more numbers and monetary success the more low tier you are. This, I'm figuring out that these people are making their more and more low tier to actually have bigger numbers to appeal to the masses in a lowest common denominator, lowest quality apologetic like Trent Horn's whining for several videos about debate and people saying four letter words. I'm actually realizing this is actually a really mark smart marketing strategy because this is going to give them masses of just absolute tards. They're going to get an army of tards. Okay? We're going to have the tards of Mordor behind these people.

Michael Lofton (34:50)

The unity of heart as well as unity of mind. Right? I'm asking specifically about the unity of mind.

Jay (34:53)

Right.

Michael Lofton (34:53)

How do you get on the exact same page, Dr. Idle on the major issues.

Joe Heschmeyer (34:55)

So the, there's a second kind of unity in Ephesians 4 where if you work down through the chapter God gave, gave gifts to the church, apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor teachers so that they can work in the church so that we can grow up into the unity of the faith. There is a, there's a unity that's given, that's foundational, that we already have. And our job is to preserve it. And we preserve it by not sinning, by not sinning it, by not hating each other.

Jay (35:15)

So Doug Wilson's answer is that we preserve unity by being good. So the means of preserving unity amongst the thousands of Protestant sects is that we be good. I'm, I'm starting to think Doug Wilson probably doesn't want to do a debate with me.

Joe Heschmeyer (35:34)

Not throwing elbows by not being Malicious.

Michael Lofton (35:36)

But, you know, this still sounds like unity of heart, though, like we're being nice to each other.

Jay (35:39)

Yeah, great point here by Joe Heshmeyer. Like, so your principle of unity is that we have a good heart and be nice.

Michael Lofton (35:47)

What?

Joe Heschmeyer (35:48)

Well, no, there's. There's a doctrinal unity. Jesus is Lord. Jesus rose from the dead.

Michael Lofton (35:51)

The.

Joe Heschmeyer (35:51)

The basics of the creed.

Jay (35:52)

Oh, so the basics are Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead. Every Mormon says that, Douglas.

Joe Heschmeyer (36:01)

So I don't have great fellowship with someone on a plane if I find

Jay (36:03)

out that they're vaguely religious, but what about if they're Mormon? Because a Mormon can affirm those propositions. You goober.

Joe Heschmeyer (36:09)

This person is a Christian, which means they're. There's a doctrinal.

Michael Lofton (36:12)

Let's talk about baptism. Let's get it really specific. Okay, you didn't believe in infant baptism. Now you do. He did believe in infant baptism, now he doesn't. You both use the same tools and got opposite results.

Joe Heschmeyer (36:19)

Right?

Jay (36:19)

Or how about the fact that at Doug Wilson's sect, they're allowed to be pro and anti capedo communion in the same communion? Yes, you heard me correct. You can go there as a Baptist believing in Calvinism and not baptize your infants and not give your infants communion, quote unquote. But also the guy next to you can commune his children. So where's the doctrinal praxis. Unity there, Doug. And what was Doug's answer? You can't make this up. We all have to be good in our hearts.

Joe Heschmeyer (36:59)

And Ephesians says, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Michael Lofton (37:02)

It does. Okay.

Joe Heschmeyer (37:02)

And.

Michael Lofton (37:03)

Seems like a first class kind of issue, right?

Joe Heschmeyer (37:05)

Not for a magisterial Protestant.

Michael Lofton (37:07)

I mean, chapter 30 of the Westminster Confession describes it as sinful not to baptize your babies.

Jay (37:10)

Yeah. So why in the Doug Wilson sect do you have people who are Credo Baptist and Paedo Baptist, Credo communion and Pedo communion at the same time?

Joe Heschmeyer (37:21)

Very true.

Michael Lofton (37:21)

Baptist was hated. Sinful to baptize your babies. That seems like a big.

Joe Heschmeyer (37:23)

But all the. All the magisterial reformers received Roman Catholic baptism. They didn't rebaptize. So I was baptized when I was 10 years old.

Michael Lofton (37:31)

Didn't the Anabaptist re. Baptize why they're called?

Jay (37:33)

Yeah. So again, as we've been pointing out tonight, the real heritage of the Reformation, that is the inheritance of America, is the radical Reformation. So, Doug Wilson, I need to know, why is it that we choose the radical. Excuse me, we choose the magisterial reformers. And not the radical reformers. Couldn't a radical Reformation person literally say every single proposition that Doug Wilson just said and Doug Wilson is not in communion and in part and parcel with radical Reformation people like Mother Ann and all these goobers out here and you say, oh well, but Mother Ann and all the goobers are the extremes. No, no they're not. Mother Ann is the norm now in the Protestant charismatic world. So I'm actually kind of surprised that Doug Wilson is this, this low tier. But I'm also kind of not surprised that he's this old here because I have been, I used to interact with those circles many, many years ago. In 2008, I emailed Doug Wilson and his cohort, right hand man Douglas Jones, to do a debate on the essence energy distinction in 2008, 2008, I'm not trying to brag, but they said no. We argued via email and whatnot over this topic. So I was already dealing with these people because I was at a church that handed out Doug Wilson's books before 9 11. So I've been in this world for a long time. I've been around these goobers for a long time. I was in these goober circles. So I know it very well. And that's how I know that this, the sect that Doug Wilson created, the crec. It makes absolutely no sense. How can you have communion with people who, the reformers that you're referring to, the quote, magisterial reformers, burned each other and drown each other over. Luther burned the Credo Baptists, excuse me, drowned them. Luther said that. Go ahead.

Listener/Caller (39:55)

You know, it's funny because I, I, I'm starting to notice that a lot of these Protestant apologists are really starting to feel the bl.

Jay (40:03)

Absolutely.

Listener/Caller (40:03)

Gavin Ortland just did a video, I think it was today or yesterday, basically talking about his kind of analysis of why people are, why these young gen zers are moving toward, you know, the Catholicism or the Eastern Orthodoxy. And I feel like, I feel like they don't have a good answer to any of it.

Jay (40:20)

No, of course they don't. And they've, and, and they have shied away from doing debates.

Listener/Caller (40:28)

Well, that, but I, I feel like that they're just not willing to admit that a lot of the errors are structural, in progress, everything that they're not. And I think you said it recently, maybe you know, the last year, that a lot of these guys have built their entire foundations of their platforms, their ministries for the last like 30, 40 years. And I think it's just a pride thing where they're. They're unwilling to want to let that go.

Jay (40:50)

Of course, yeah. Doug Wilson has. He's the Pope of the crec. Of course. Let's listen to more of this Baptist.

Joe Heschmeyer (40:55)

Yeah, correct.

Michael Lofton (40:55)

I mean, they're kind of the forerunners of the modern Baptist. Right. They do re. Baptize.

Joe Heschmeyer (40:57)

Right. And the magisterial reformers had as much a problem with the Anabaptists as they do with the Roman Catholic.

Jay (41:01)

Ah, did you hear that? Here's exactly where I was going to go. If I was in this debate, I would have immediately gone to the radical Reformation, which Doug Wilson just brought up. But this is a kill shot for his system, because who's the true reformer now? Let's go back. Rewind to Paul Washer. Back in the day, Paul Washer was a hardcore committed Reformed Baptist Calvinist in 1999, 2000. And I used to go, you know, people were like. People were following Fish or whatever or the dead. Like, we would follow Paul Washer when he would do his tent meetings and his preaching at revivals. Okay. Back in the late 90s and the early 2000s. And Paul Washer, as you guys know, would give the same sermon over and over and over. It got millions of views, like 10 years ago on YouTube because it went viral. And I didn't fall for it because I saw the same shtick back in the late 90s, where suddenly the Holy Spirit just happens to move him at the same minute in every one of these revivals. And a funny thing happened with Paul Washer, which was as I was moving in the direction and I knew Paul, so it's not like I didn't know this guy. Like, I'd been to many of his. His revival. He would come and speak at Campus Crusade, and I would go to the Campus Crusade meetings. And we got to be good friends with him. Well, I would say good friends. We were acquaintances, I should say. He knew who I was. I would give him, you know, tapes of my pastor. He would give me tapes of his sermons and whatnot. So we had a cordial acquaintance relationship. And at one of the meetings a couple years after the college period, when he was doing, like, college preaching,

Listener/Caller (42:51)

he

Jay (42:51)

came to speak at a Baptist church that I used to go to. And. And I went to it. This is the famous one where he threw me out, right? And before he had me thrown out, he said, jay, it's a blackout. And I said, what do you mean? He said, well, I've been reading the radical reformers, the Anabaptists, and he Says the more I read the Anabaptists, he says, I realize they're the real authentic Reformation, he says, because the magisterial reformers, they didn't go far enough. They didn't purge the Romish Popish influences from the Church enough. And he says, I finally came to the conclusion when I read the Church Fathers that the Church Fathers had departed and so there was a blackout. So Paul Washer and the Anabaptists are more consistent than Doug Wilson and the magisterial reformers who no longer have the ecclesial structure, the sacraments in the, in terms of real presence and the continuity of apostolic succession. And they really people that read the Church Fathers. It's just, I'm just saying Paul Washer is a great example of somebody who realized the Church Fathers are not teaching magisterial Reformation teaching. So you either go in the direction of orthodoxy or perhaps Rome, if you're, you know, we're talking in the early 2000s here, we didn't know about orthodoxy yet. Right, so. Or you say, well, wait a minute, maybe the Church Fathers got it wrong. I'm saying that's a more consistent position than Doug Wilson because Doug Wilson's sect wants its cake and to eat it too. How? Well, they produced Peter Leithart and James Jordan, who also went off into this made up halfway house between Anglicanism and I don't even know what you call it. It's, it's like, it's like Anglo Anglican Baptist is what these people are, right? Because you can wear your little dog collar if you want to in the CREC and you can have a little candle and a little bit of robe and a little bit of incense, but you also don't have to have any of that, right? So it's like all of that stuff is adiaphora. But if the Church of the first thousand years isn't radical Reformation and isn't Magisterial Protestantism, then Doug Wilson would be more consistent like Paul Washer to go into radical Reformation Anabaptist stuff, wouldn't he? That's what I'm trying to say. So anyway, I just thought it's funny because I've been pointing this out. Why aren't you radical, a radical Reformation person? And by the way, in his own sect, he's got people that are the descendants of the radical Reformation people, the Baptists, the Credo Baptists in his church that don't have to baptize their infants, are sitting there communing with the people who believe in pedo communion supposedly and have baptized their infants. So Doug Wilson is being totally inconsistent because he's got Anabaptists and Anglo Anglicans, wannabe Anglicans in his own church. This makes no sense.

Michael Lofton (46:14)

This is what I mean. But the Anabaptist.

Jay (46:16)

Go ahead.

Listener/Caller (46:16)

Because the Reformation very quickly devolved into the like you're pointing out the Anabaptist thing, right? And every time it's funny, every time it's funny because every time I, it put point out the monster rebellion that happened in Germany, right? You know, people look at me like I'm crazy, but I'm like, you guys know that that was a legit thing that happened. Like immediately they started doing polygamy, they started doing heretical teachings, they started killing people. Like I just. It's the, it's the inevitable point when you shift away from normative authority, from being the ecclesial body to the individual. Like it's free game at that point.

Jay (46:52)

Exactly. And that's the, the point of tension that I brought up with Redeemed Coomer, who literally just went in a worse direction when, when grappling with this question for the last three years since our debate. His response is, oh well, the magisterial church is now all of Protestantism. Somehow like just made up nonsense, just like scam shamoos made up nonsense that we saw earlier. People are converting because they realize that these people don't have answers. There is massive weaknesses in their position. And like you said, the problem is actually systemic and struct. It's not a how do we combat young men. It's a structural problem, dude. It's not young men wanting to get into some fad. There's a structural, systemic level problem in your system.

Michael Lofton (47:38)

That's why they're converting, losing sola scriptura and coming to a wildly different conclusion.

Joe Heschmeyer (47:42)

They're using solo scripture.

Michael Lofton (47:44)

So what are they doing wrong?

Jay (47:45)

This is a made up distinction that Doug Wilson published From Keith Matheson 20 years ago in Keith Matheson's book the Problem of Soul Scripture. I still have it over on my Calvinist shelf. So basically, what to let you guys know what Keith Matheson invents, He's totally invented this position just like all the Protestants do. He says, oh yes, we must come up with a way to have a high place for, quote, tradition in the magisterial Protestant churches. And so we are not the Anabaptists because they do solo scriptura. We do sola scriptura, which is supposed to be this nuanced thing where we have a high respect for tradition. Who cares? It means Nothing. Because the Protestant tradition still has the right of private judgment and the freedom of conscience, which no man can trample on my conscience. These are Reformation distinctives. So the argument is dog within your own Reformation distinctives. There's a contradiction. The contradiction is not do the. It's not. We're not asking, do you have any appreciation for authority? Because this is the first thing they run to. Oh, look, we do have appreciation for authority. We have an appreciation for tradition. That's not what we're asking. We're saying, how do you reconcile your supposed trust and respect in tradition and authority with the Reformation distinctive of the right of private judgment, the freedom of conscience and freedom of worship? How do you reconcile those things with the so called respect for tradition and normative authority? And we want to like Athanasius and the Council and the creeds and so forth. That is the internal contradiction that cannot be resolved. That's why the Anabaptists are a sticking point for these people. Because why are they the bad guys? Well, they're using solo script. Torah. No, they're doing the same thing that you're doing, but they come to radically different conclusions. So the question is, it's a problem of method and structure. That's Joe's question to him, which he's avoiding.

Michael Lofton (49:53)

That they should do. They should listen to the church, because the church.

Listener/Caller (49:56)

I noticed that Sam Shamoon is trying to insert that Protestant thinking.

Jay (50:01)

That's exactly what he's doing.

Listener/Caller (50:02)

What he's been talking about about like, you know, the shared apostolic tradition, tradition amongst all of the churches. It's sort of a Protestant presupposition. I think that he's still like, absolutely, yes.

Jay (50:13)

Every one of these people is crafting ex post facto a solution. That's why people are converting is. And I'm telling you this to Doug Wilson and to Gavin Orland and all you people. The reason people are leaving and you're bleeding members is because we're pointing out a structural problem and you are replying by not addressing the structural problem. And people see that. Exactly right.

Michael Lofton (50:45)

Baptism saves you and is regenerative and is necessary for salvation under ordinary means. Right. Well, you and the Anabaptist both reject the church's teaching of baptism.

Jay (50:52)

Well, exactly. Amazing point. I wonder if Joe has been taking my Anabaptist line of argument. Has he been watching? I don't know. I can't prove that I've been making these arguments about the Anabaptist stuff. Not many other people are making these arguments.

Joe Heschmeyer (51:07)

I reject baptismal regeneration.

Michael Lofton (51:09)

Right.

Jay (51:10)

Ah, Interesting. So he rejects baptismal regeneration like the Anabaptists. But Doug Wilson wants you to think he's a appreciator of High Church anglicanism at times.

Michael Lofton (51:25)

500 years of Christianity. It says the church speaks with one voice on baptism. This is page 8:54 of his book. You can find he goes through like hundreds of pages showing the early Christians are unanimous on baptism being salvific and what it does, it makes you a child of God. And all this. You, I believe, reject all of that.

Joe Heschmeyer (51:36)

No.

Michael Lofton (51:37)

Okay. You believe baptism is necessary for salvation and makes you a child of God.

Joe Heschmeyer (51:39)

I believe that that baptism unites you to the visible covenant, making you a child of God visibly in the world.

Michael Lofton (51:44)

But I'm asking in the sense the early Christians mean that you actually.

Jay (51:46)

Yeah. Again, this is Doug Wilson's Nestorian heresy of dividing the church visible from the church invisible, which is the classic Calvinist teaching.

Michael Lofton (51:55)

Become born again of water in the spirit in baptism.

Joe Heschmeyer (51:58)

I dispute that. The early Christians uniformly held that. So.

Jay (52:01)

Yeah, and who has ever taught amongst the patristic corpus that they did not mean baptismal regeneration? And by the way, this is another important point that Protestants always avoid because I know I was in the Calvinist world and we would recite the Nicene Creed, right? We would. Now obviously, what's this false one with the filoque? But when we would come to that point, I believe in one holy Catholic apostolic Church. How does every Protestant Calvinist interpret it? The invisible church. Obviously that's who they really mean. Shouldn't we interpret the Creed the way the Capadians and the Church Fathers who composed the Creed interpreted it? Of course we should. And did they mean the invisible church? Of course they didn't. There are no Church fathers that teach the invisible Church. The closest that you can come is in a commentary by Donatus. Yes, you heard me correctly. Donatus has a commentary where he speaks like there is an invisible church which is the true pure Church that is not the visible public Catholic Orthodox Church. So the actual origins of this idea of invisible church, and this was actually pointed out to me by a. An Orthodox scholar one time and he was arguing that the remnants of this Donatist idea, believe it or not, hear me out before you spur out, are actually in St. Augustine. Now I'm not saying St. Augustine was Adonis. I know he was not a Donatist. I've read all of the anti Donatist works. I read all the anti Pelagian works. So I'm very familiar with Augustine's arguments against the Pelagians but what this orthodox priest was arguing was that Augustine was actually a huge fan of some of the commentaries. It was, it may be maybe even a Tico. Tico the Donatist I think was his name. There's a Donatist commentator whom Augustine actually appreciated his writings. Right. And I want to say his name was Tycho or Tico the Donatist. He may have been a Donatist cleric or something. So even though Augustine was very anti Donatus, obviously he appreciated the biblical commentaries of one of their, their clerics. And the orthodox priest that I'm talking about had a thesis. I don't care if you accept or reject this thesis, doesn't matter to me. But his thesis was that there was an influence of Augustine saying well, there's not a pure church like the Donatists think, but perhaps the unconditionally elect are the true church. Now Augustine did not go all the way into invisible church, right? Because Augustine still thought that the visible public church was the true Church that had the means of grace and that they were all the sons of God. There is no visible invisible divide in Augustine. He was a bishop, he believed in the real presence. He was a member of the episcopacy. So I'm not saying that he was a Donatist or that he taught invisible church, but he was influenced by a commentator and he had the idea that the invisible elect who were predestined were the fixed number. That's the real true church of the Eschaton. The Reformers took that idea and went the next step to say, ah, the true church is only the unconditionally elected. That's Calvin's view. And you could argue that it's kind of Luther's view, even though Luther has a higher view of the sacraments and the visible structure of the church than Calvin did. But regardless, the Calvinists definitely stressed the visible invisible distinction to a new level beyond anyone else. And it's actually more akin to something Donatist.

Listener/Caller (55:53)

Would you say that the, that basically the Reformed perfected that ideology as a sort of parachute rescue to save their fractured ecclesiology?

Jay (56:05)

Absolutely, yeah. That's the number one question.

Listener/Caller (56:07)

It's basically a cop out. It's a, it's a kind of a way to say, well this is how we would explain it. But in reality it's it, it doesn't even address the whole.

Jay (56:15)

Right, well, Calvin's Institutes, I've read all of the 1556 and I've read all the 15, 1559 institutes. So I've read the whole 1500 page 1559 institutes. And Calvin is responding to many critics. And one of the critics that he's having to respond extensively to are the Roman Catholic arguments. Right. And Luther was having a similar situation where there's a really good forgotten. Oh, crap. Who is it? Not. Who's this is. I read this like 20 years ago. Luther's main Roman Catholic opponent. Not Tetzel, but there's a Roman Catholic apologist. And he wrote a big, huge. It's like a 400 page response to Luther. And I'm going blank on the book. I read it in college. But Luther was responding to some of these. These types of arguments as well. In that. In that Roman Catholic.

Listener/Caller (57:17)

Guys, Was it Johan?

Jay (57:18)

E E. It's. That's it. I've read X book against Luther. So Luther and Calvin are both responding to Roman Catholic critiques. And you're absolutely correct. Their response is to say, yeah, okay, well, then the true church is. Is this invisible group. You're absolutely right. All right, let's listen to Doug real quick.

Michael Lofton (57:39)

Who is an early Christian who doesn't hold that?

Joe Heschmeyer (57:40)

Peter, the apostle Peter.

Michael Lofton (57:41)

Okay. Who's an early Christian interpreting the Bible? Just begging the question, is there anyone in the early church? Because Peter says baptism now saves you, comparing it to Noah's ark.

Joe Heschmeyer (57:46)

Saving through water, not the washing of dirt from the skin.

Michael Lofton (57:48)

Yeah. No one on the regenerative baptism side thinks baptism saves you by making you look clean.

Joe Heschmeyer (57:53)

They do believe that you have to have the application of water to be saved.

Michael Lofton (57:56)

Yes. Water and the spirit. Right.

Joe Heschmeyer (57:57)

And so the thief. The thief on the cross is not saved.

Michael Lofton (58:00)

No. Just like a baby who doesn't come to an explicit knowledge of Jesus.

Joe Heschmeyer (58:03)

Oh, so we don't need the water.

Michael Lofton (58:03)

Isn't condemned when Jesus gives it.

Joe Heschmeyer (58:05)

Now we don't need the water.

Michael Lofton (58:05)

Explicit within that. That you are able to obey the command. Someone who's incapable of doing it, whether that's someone who isn't able to make a profession of faith because they diet. 2. Someone who's not able to get baptized because they're crucified to a cross.

Joe Heschmeyer (58:14)

One of the issues that you find out in pastoral ministry almost right away is you can have the doctrinal system laid out nice and tidy. And pastoral ministry is not tidy. So you lead someone to Christ, he calls on the Lord, he is converted, and let's go down to the river and baptize you. And he gets hit by a bus on the way down.

Michael Lofton (58:28)

Yeah. The early Christians, they treat this explicitly in baptism of desire.

Joe Heschmeyer (58:31)

Correct? Yeah. So if you make those Distinctions. I'm good.

Michael Lofton (58:33)

Okay. So baptism is normatively salvific.

Joe Heschmeyer (58:35)

Yes, Baptism. So when.

Michael Lofton (58:37)

So if a Baptist does not get baptized because they want to wait until they're a little older to make more of a profession, and then they die.

Joe Heschmeyer (58:41)

He's sinning and it's a grievous sin.

Michael Lofton (58:43)

Is he endangered his own salvation?

Joe Heschmeyer (58:44)

Well, you can't lose your salvation.

Michael Lofton (58:45)

I'm saying endangering his salvation by not getting saved in the first place.

Joe Heschmeyer (58:47)

Salvation is not like a set of car keys that you lose.

Michael Lofton (58:49)

Is he forfeiting his salvation?

Joe Heschmeyer (58:51)

You have reasonable ground. People who despise baptism, there are reasonable grounds for questioning the sincerity of their faith.

Michael Lofton (58:57)

Okay, okay.

Joe Heschmeyer (58:58)

So. But I don't want to say that you can be a Christian, not a Christian, be a Christian, not a Christian.

Michael Lofton (59:01)

I haven't gotten from you a clear answer on how can you solas Kapur to figure out who.

Joe Heschmeyer (59:03)

Right.

Michael Lofton (59:04)

On baptism. Because the Anglicans, the magisterial reform, the Anabaptists are going to disagree and. And the Catholics are going to disagree.

Joe Heschmeyer (59:08)

Yeah, Catholics disagree with one another just

Michael Lofton (59:10)

like Protestants disagree with one on this issue. Not at all. No. I'm saying specifically on the issue that I'm asking about, how do I know from Scripture alone which interpretation is the right one?

Joe Heschmeyer (59:18)

You read the Bible and you read it again. You study it, you pray, you.

Michael Lofton (59:21)

So did you were Gavin Fish.

Jay (59:24)

So Doug Wilson's answer to how do we resolve differing interpretations of scripture is tell them to read it and read it and read it again. This is so low tier, dude. I. I'm kind of glad that people are perhaps catching on and seeing that Doug Wilson stuff is actually really low tier because I've known this and because I tried to debate with him in 2007 and 8. And for example, when I was having these exchanges, one of the responses. But I think Douglas Jones and Doug Wilson wrote a thing on their blog back then. It was. It was called blog and may blog. And I don't know if it still exists or not, but the responses on the Essence Energy distinction were. So I was like blown away at how low tier it was. And I'm like, dude, Doug Wilson's always been this low tier to do that.

Joe Heschmeyer (60:14)

Somebody did.

Michael Lofton (60:15)

Like, you want to venture against us too? I mean, like, if your position. Seriously, the Baptists have just never tried fellow.

Joe Heschmeyer (60:21)

So I grew up with.

Jay (60:23)

So wait, his argument was that Baptists just haven't really tried it. Right. This is like communist, dude. Yeah, but true communism has never been tried, bro. Like this. What it's like a. I don't know. No true Scotsman version of like, no true. No true soul scriptura has actually been tried by Baptists. Is that what he said?

Michael Lofton (60:42)

Yeah.

Joe Heschmeyer (60:43)

Catholics disagree with one another just like

Michael Lofton (60:45)

Protestants disagree with one on this issue. Not at all. No one I'm saying specifically on the issue that I'm asking about, how do I know from Scripture alone which interpretation is the right one?

Joe Heschmeyer (60:53)

You read the Bible and you read it again. You study it, what you pray.

Michael Lofton (60:57)

So if you were Gavin.

Jay (60:58)

So this is Pastor P level. Guys, I want you to understand. Doug Wilson's response to this question is literally Pastor P level. Now, Pastor P was a sweet man. Not. Not talking about Master P, Who I debated on the crucible when Kotel had to cancel. He had something going on. So I debated Pastor P. A sweet Baptist man heard him say it. However, again, Baptist Anabaptist. Right. Pastor P's unfortunate sixth grader response is literally the same response as the face of intellectual Christian Protestant nationalism. Doug Wilson, identical reply. You study and you read and then you study it again, son.

Michael Lofton (61:54)

Failed to do that.

Joe Heschmeyer (61:55)

Somebody did.

Michael Lofton (61:56)

Like, you want to convince your guesses too? I mean, like, is your position. Seriously, The Baptists have just never tried solace from Torah.

Joe Heschmeyer (62:01)

So I grew up in the Baptist church. Your father's right, my father. So I know that world and love and appreciate that world. Paul says in Romans 2 that there is circumcision. Those who have faith their uncircumcision will become circumcision. And those who are living up, living poorly, their circumcision becomes uncircumcision. This would be in our category, the baptism of desire. They're Baptist parents who are bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Michael Lofton (62:24)

I understand. Appreciate your view on baptism. I don't know why I should trust it over any other Protestants view on baptism.

Listener/Caller (62:28)

Right.

Joe Heschmeyer (62:29)

Well, basically, back to private interpretation. You have to make up your own mind.

Michael Lofton (62:31)

Okay? So how are Christians ever going to agree?

Joe Heschmeyer (62:33)

But that doesn't go away if. If I become a Roman Catholic.

Michael Lofton (62:35)

It does. There's very clear teaching. The Council of trend infallibly tells us what to believe.

Joe Heschmeyer (62:38)

It goes away if I step into your interpretive stream within the Catholic tradition.

Michael Lofton (62:42)

No, no, no. If you just. If you say I believe the Catholic Church believes there's a clear teaching on baptism. If I say I believe the Protestant church believes there isn't. If I say I believe it, Solskora teaches there isn't. So those are not apples and apples, those Are apples in a thing that's different.

Jay (62:52)

Yeah. I mean, again, I mean, this is such an obvious kind of basic point that Joel, Joe or Joel and I always forgive us because Joe Heschmeyer is making. Yeah, it's not that complex. Right. Like, come on, Doug. We know that at least the Catholic and Orthodox Church unanimously agree that baptismal regeneration is true. Even the Lutherans believe it. Okay, and you're telling me that the solution to a disagreement on a very fundamental topic, that the magisterial reformers burned the Credo Baptist and pedobaptist and. And drown the pedobaptists, the Credo Baptists, over the. The solution now is you just read a lot and pray a lot about it.

Joe Heschmeyer (63:36)

I believe that Muslims are not saved. The Catholic catechism says that they are. And they're not baptized.

Michael Lofton (63:41)

It doesn't say they. Actually, the paragraph you quote does not say they're saved. It says that the plan of salvation includes Muslims. That doesn't mean they're already saved. There's much.

Jay (63:47)

Well, now, wait a minute. Nostratate speaks as if this is actually a good point for Doug Wilson here. Nostra Tata actually in limited 16 are actually ambiguous and say that they worship the same God as Christians and Jews, and it implies that they can be saved. The. By the way, the clarification doc document that Lofton always goes to actually clarifies that no, they can be saved in Islam through the power of the Holy Spirit, supposedly, somehow it could be said.

Michael Lofton (64:16)

I'm virtually leaving that issue aside because there's a misunderstanding of that. That's very common.

Jay (64:19)

Oh, let's leave that issue aside because it's a misunderstanding. Is it because the clarification. The Lofton always points out this. I'm gonna have to give this. This point here to Doug Wilson. Now, Doug is not winning. I'm just saying he gets a point

Michael Lofton (64:33)

at this point, and it's too big to get into here. God desires the salvation of all men to come to knowledge of the truth. So the plan of salvation includes everyone.

Joe Heschmeyer (64:39)

And. And good job.

Michael Lofton (64:40)

That doesn't mean everyone is, in fact, saved. Okay, that's. That's. The catechism is misunderstood on that point.

Joe Heschmeyer (64:43)

So if someone says, how do you know?

Jay (64:45)

Yeah, but the catechism says that they're saved. Well, I'll take that back. The clarification says they are saved in Islam through the power of the Holy Spirit. And let's see if we can believe it or not. Lofton is actually good on this. Lofton has actually been saying a lot better stuff lately. I'm not a fan of Lofton. I'm just saying I'm surprised that the. I don't know if I'll be able to find that clip, though. Yes, I did find it. Here's what everyone so here is Lofton actually being correct. I think this is it. Let's. Let's play a little bit. This is relevant to what Joe Heshmeyer actually said here.

Michael Lofton (65:32)

One missed in the whole do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Debate that's been going on lately. Most people are pointing to the famous line from Vatican II's document Lumen Gentium, paragraph 16, which says the Muslims along with us adore the one and merciful God. But somehow almost nobody is talking about the sentence right before it which says this. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator in the first place. Amongst these, there are the Muslims.

Jay (65:56)

Now, the problem with the ambiguity in that passage, as Lofton will explain, I do not agree with Lofton theologically. I'm saying that Lofton is correctly stating what Vatican II means, which supports actually Doug Wilson's point against what Joe Heshmeyer is saying. But notice the ambiguity in the phrase. The plan of salvation includes the Muslims who acknowledge a creator. Well, the plan of salvation is supposed to include those who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior, John 14:6. So no, already the ambiguity can be read either way, right? If I just had that sentence, I could read that to say, well, the plan of salvation, quote unquote, means that Muslims can be saved. Well, that's a ridiculous, redundant, stupid statement. Who thought that the plan of Muslims didn't include the plan of salvation, didn't include Muslims or Hindus or anyone. So the language itself, I think, lends to saying, no, Muslims can be saved in Islam, not through Islam, but in spite of Islam. And that's exactly what Lofton points out here.

Michael Lofton (67:06)

That's a huge deal. As I've pointed out many times before, this is not an isolated statement. Multiple Vatican documents make it very clear that non Christians and therefore also Muslims, can be saved by the Holy Spirit working through their own religions.

Jay (67:17)

Exactly. And this is why Doug Wilson is correct just on this point. He's a bloated, arrogant goober. He's the new Jerry Falwell. But he is correct to say this point against Heshmeyer, who is trying to deflect away because to be fair, the debate is not about Islam and salvation in other religions. But Doug Wilson is correct on this point, even though it's not technically under the confines of what they're debating, if

Michael Lofton (67:46)

they're sincerely seeking the goodness found in them and, you know, a few other conditions. But the idea is that the Holy Spirit is working through the goodness in these other religions, not like he does with the sacraments, but by a person's faithfulness to the good found in their own religion. The Holy Spirit's working there and can save them from through that. So they might not even know that they're Christian, but somehow they're mystically united to the church outside, which.

Jay (68:04)

Which is preposterous. How do you not know that you're a Christian in a religion that specifically rejects Christ as the Savior? But you're.

Listener/Caller (68:17)

It's your.

Jay (68:18)

You're an unknowing Christian. And by the way, this is also why the Vatican made those statements in the last couple decades here and there, by very. Let's see, Francis said it. I don't know. I can't remember Leo. So Francis said it more than anybody. But even atheists, right, can accidentally be saved. In atheism, there is no salvation.

Michael Lofton (68:35)

One official Vatican document, by the same

Jay (68:37)

line of argumentation, I'm saying it says this.

Michael Lofton (68:40)

Given this explicit recognition of the presence of the spirit of Christ in the religions, one cannot exclude the possibility that they exercise as such a certain salvific function that.

Jay (68:48)

So this is a Vatican clarification document on what Vatican II means in Lumen Gentium 16, in Nostradate 3. And you can see Lofton is pointing out that this is. This is the. The sense in which Vatican II means what it says. And this is actually making Doug Wilson's point against Heschmeyer. But again, that is not what they're debating.

Joe Heschmeyer (69:11)

Review of baptism is correct.

Michael Lofton (69:13)

Wait, you're asking questions now? No, I'm asking during your part. Now you want to ask a question?

Joe Heschmeyer (69:17)

I'm rephrasing your question. I'm. I was.

Michael Lofton (69:19)

Okay.

Joe Heschmeyer (69:19)

I was helping you with your question.

Michael Lofton (69:22)

Okay. Yeah. I'm saying how do I know not just what is Doug Wilson's view of baptism, but that Doug Wilson's view is the sola scriptura interpretation?

Joe Heschmeyer (69:27)

I would quote the prophet Isaiah to the law and to the testimony. I would say, let's have a Bible study.

Michael Lofton (69:30)

Okay?

Joe Heschmeyer (69:31)

So that's always going to be my answer. Let's.

Michael Lofton (69:32)

Let's have a Bible study.

Jay (69:35)

So Doug Wilson is just a Baptist, basically, Right? I didn't know he comes from a Baptist background, but Doug Wilson is still a Baptist. And he's literally saying what Pastor P would say and said to me when I asked all These same questions to Pastor P. Identical answers as Doug Wilson.

Michael Lofton (69:54)

500 Years of Protestants just not had a Bible study to solve this.

Joe Heschmeyer (69:56)

We've had lots of.

Jay (69:57)

Yeah. Why are the Bible studies not working to create normative authority. Dog Bible study.

Michael Lofton (70:03)

And it didn't solve it.

Joe Heschmeyer (70:04)

Okay, let me. Let me address. Yes, it actually has.

Jay (70:07)

Oh, Bible studies have solved it. So the question of normative authority and unity has been solved because there's been Bible studies, and it has been solved according to Doug.

Joe Heschmeyer (70:17)

So one of the things that I mentioned my book, Papa Dome Pope, earlier, there's a chapter in there where going through the data collated in the World Christian Encyclopedia, he. There's an author who helpfully collated how many divisions there actually are within Christendom. How many divisions are there within Anglicanism? How many divisions are there within Protestantism? How many within Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? Those. They're not wild. It's common to say Protestants have something like 27,000.

Michael Lofton (70:43)

I'm not saying that just right. I'm saying that there's too many.

Joe Heschmeyer (70:45)

Yeah, I think there's too many also. But it's more like 19. And the Roman.

Jay (70:48)

Oh, it's more like 19,000. It's not 27. Oh, good, excellent. So we're. It's. It's working, right? There's not 27,000 sects amongst Protestants. Doug has set us straight. It's only 19,000, you guys. So it's actually working.

Joe Heschmeyer (71:05)

Catholic tradition has.

Michael Lofton (71:06)

I think I can name more than 19 just sitting here.

Joe Heschmeyer (71:08)

No, what he does.

Michael Lofton (71:10)

I mean, are you playing like Mennonites?

Jay (71:11)

Wait, 19,000 or 19. I thought he was saying 19,000, not 27,000. Right, because the common refrain is 20. 27,000. Different protest denominations. Is he saying it's. No, it's 27. No, it's actually just 19. Come on. 19. Protestant. It's. Dude, it can't be 19. 19,000, maybe. But no sane person would say there's only 19. Protestant sex. Come on, Dude.

Michael Lofton (71:39)

Quakers. Are you putting all those in the same family?

Joe Heschmeyer (71:41)

Yeah, yeah.

Jay (71:41)

Now, wait a minute. Do the Quakers count? Dude, he must be listening to me. Who else has been talking about Quakers? Me. I ain't heard nobody else talking about no Quakers. Is Joe Heshmeyer stealing my argument about Anabaptist? I think he is.

Joe Heschmeyer (71:56)

Mennonites and the Amish would be in

Michael Lofton (71:57)

the same stream, but they're not.

Jay (71:58)

Wait a minute. Mennonites and Amish are now part of his mainline Protestantism. Dude, does. People don't actually know Mennonite.

Listener/Caller (72:10)

Not.

Jay (72:10)

They're They're a cult, Dude. He's saying it's only 19. Are you serious? I thought he meant 19,000. He's saying there's literally only 19 different Protestant sects. Come on, dude. That is absolutely legit insane. Now, if you reframe what counts as division and what counts as unity, I mean, this is, by the way, exactly what Redeemed Zoomer did the other day, right? He's reframed it to say, actually, Protestantism is a giant unified communion. What? So, yeah, I mean, you could re. Redefine everything to say, basically that. Why don't we just redefine everybody who, quote, believes in God, and then we're all. We're all in union. This. Like, why don't we just go with the Freemason thing? Everybody who believes in just a generic deity, a higher power. Let's go with the AA theology. Right. Do you believe in a higher power? Oh, well, then we're all part of the same communion because we acknowledge, mentally, notionally, the same higher power.

Michael Lofton (73:14)

This is so in unity with one another. They're different denominations.

Joe Heschmeyer (73:17)

So. So, for example, they're every Protestant denomination. If they come to Christchurch, we receive their baptism.

Jay (73:23)

We respect their church discipline, every Protestant nomination. So what about the ones that are actually Christologically heretical, because those do exist. What about the ones who actually don't? They don't actually teach the Trinity. So, like, I mean, oneness. Pentecostals are a Protestant denomination and they don't teach the Trinity. Is their baptism acceptable?

Joe Heschmeyer (73:44)

Doug, we don't agree with them on, let's say, eschatology. We don't agree with them on pato baptism. But if a family comes from a Baptist background or they come from a loop.

Jay (73:52)

All right, I mean, let's just use basic AI here. Come on. All right, what do you think the AI is going to say? Right? I don't think it's going to say 19.

Listener/Caller (74:04)

Foreign.

Jay (74:07)

Let's see what basic AI says here. How many Protestant denominations are there? Okay, so according to basic AI, and I am not saying that we should just default to AI, it says it's estimated that there are 47,000 denominations or as low as 33,000. Okay, so when Doug said 19, does he actually mean literally just 19 or 19K?

Listener/Caller (74:41)

Hey, Jay, I actually got a question. Now that you're talking about that, do you think. I was just thinking about it here. So I'm thinking about, like, perennialism, and I'm thinking about Freemasonry and, like, secret societies. Do you think that that's sort of the ultimate byproduct of the radical Reformation is sort of these secret societies and perennialism.

Jay (75:06)

It's, it's there as a strain and an influence. But it's a good question as to how powerful that strain and influence of ecumenism within the Protestant world has actually been because many, many Protestants obviously have been Masons. And obviously Freemasonry is way more amenable to Protestantism than it is to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. So, yeah, that's actually a really good question. I mean, Luther was influenced by the Theologia Germanica, which was a Neoplatonic Hermetic text. He was influenced by, and scholars have argued this and shown this, by the way, other later Lutheran divines were influenced by hermetic teachings. In fact, the Chris Johan Andre, many people think, scholars think. If you read Dame Francis Yates, his book Rose Christian Enlightenment, she argues that the early Rosicrucians were Lutheran, Lutheran theologians, which is plausible. So I would say this is probably pretty, pretty substantial in terms of influence. Let's see. And by the way, the entire Church of England. The Church of England packed with Freemasons for centuries, according to Grok. We're going to compare Grock to Gemini. Grox says more practical estimates are major denominations, 200. So depending upon how. How you want to cut it up, it says the 33,000 number is a statistic from demographic databases. It's not a clean count, but a more accurate answer would be hundreds, 2000s. So he's, he's not very helpful here. But it's, it's not 19. I don't know where Doug Wilson's coming up with that nonsense.

Joe Heschmeyer (77:05)

Turn background. We receive them. We don't say, okay, you have to start over as a Christian.

Michael Lofton (77:08)

No, I don't think anyone's arguing that.

Joe Heschmeyer (77:10)

That means there's a fundamental unity there.

Michael Lofton (77:12)

But you're not on the question of what baptism does or who should receive baptism or how baptism can be performed.

Joe Heschmeyer (77:15)

There's a difference between having debates and having discussions where you differ and sometimes enthusiastic.

Michael Lofton (77:19)

Okay, so is your.

Jay (77:20)

But, Doug, the history of the Baptists, the Anabaptists and the magisterial reformers is that they killed each other over infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. And Doug knows this. Doug Wilson knows church history.

Michael Lofton (77:34)

Not to know this position that social scriptural practicing Protestants do not disagree on major doctrinal issues.

Joe Heschmeyer (77:38)

Yeah. On gospel issues, they don't.

Michael Lofton (77:39)

Can I disagree about which things are.

Jay (77:40)

On gospel issues, they don't disagree. This is a form of no true Scotsman fallacy where Doug Wilson will just simply say that everyone who agrees with my theology, what the true gospel is in my Baptist Reformation idea, is the true Christian, and thus anyone who doesn't believe that is excluded from being a true Christian. And so thus we all agree. So this is a. This is a moving. The goal post. No. True Scotsman fallacy from Doug Wilson.

Michael Lofton (78:04)

Not gospel issues. No, I think. Okay, so you're telling me if I said.

Jay (78:07)

And this is. I mean, Joel Heschmeyer is saying, well, wait a minute, you're saying that's not a gospel issue. Well, this begs the question, what are the gospel issues?

Michael Lofton (78:14)

Then to two Protestants, can you believe in evolution and be a saved Christian? I'm gonna get the same answer every time.

Joe Heschmeyer (78:18)

You're not gonna get the same answer every time.

Michael Lofton (78:19)

Okay, Sound like they disagree about.

Joe Heschmeyer (78:20)

No, you'll get the same answer from me every time.

Michael Lofton (78:22)

You're not the only Protestant.

Jay (78:23)

Yeah, but, Doug, we don't care. You're not the we. I know you think you're the center of Protestantism, but we don't think that

Joe Heschmeyer (78:30)

I. I am tonight.

Michael Lofton (78:32)

The idea is.

Jay (78:33)

Yeah, that's super funny, dude. Wow. Doug Wilson. He'll be here all week, folks, with the laugh.

Michael Lofton (78:40)

The laugh huttling assistant you claim will produce unity. Right. But the unity is just. You agree with yourself.

Joe Heschmeyer (78:44)

No, no. What I'm.

Jay (78:45)

What I'm saying, that's actually correct.

Joe Heschmeyer (78:47)

Joe's corrector is that if I. I'm a creationist. I'm a young earth creationist. I wish. You know, I believe it all. Noah's ark, giraffe sticking out of the window, everything. What's that?

Michael Lofton (78:57)

Dinosaurs.

Joe Heschmeyer (78:57)

Dinosaurs also. Okay, so I'm. I'm just right in there. And if I talk to a fellow Christian, an evangelical Christian who's a theistic evolutionist, I believe that's a serious error. But I believe he can be truly saved and a true follower of Jesus Christ.

Jay (79:09)

I do want to point out one thing briefly, which illustrates that, again, I totally disagree with Doug Wilson, obviously, and I think that Doug is losing this debate. But I did have to give him one point, which was kind of, in a roundabout way, Michael Lofton's point. Ironically, Doug Wilson and Michael Lofton are agreeing here, and that is to say that Doug inadvertently is onto something with turning the question on Joe Heschmeyer, because notice that Joe Heschmeyer is trying to downplay the disagreements amongst Roman Catholics to give the impression that Rome is united. Now, technically, yes. On the issue of infant baptism. Baptism, regeneration, yes. Rome, orthodoxy, we all agree on Those basic propositions and points. However, when there's something that is apparently a difficult issue with regard to Muslims and the plan of salvation, notice that Joe Heschmeyer and Michael Lofton don't agree and we are supposedly going to get the solution via the magisterium of the papacy. But the magisterium of the papacy is actually clarifying in a non infallible way the infallible teaching through the document that Lofton is citing here. And notice that it is not Joe Heschmeyer's interpretation, at least from what I could derive from what they were saying in this debate. So I thought the papacy was the pop apologist solution to when we have these divisions and yet we have a non infallible clarification of the infallible teaching which says something that is not what Joe Heschmeyer says. So the papacy does. The point I'm making is that papacy doesn't solve this problem.

Michael Lofton (80:53)

But you would acknowledge that there's a dispute within Protestantism on some of these questions.

Joe Heschmeyer (80:55)

Oh, absolutely.

Michael Lofton (80:56)

Okay, so it sounds like on major issues of possible scientific importance, soloscriptural practicing Protestants do not in fact agree. And if you asked what are the.

Jay (81:03)

By the way, I want to call everybody's attention to the fact that Joe Heschmeier did not debate Alex Soren. He backed down from that debate.

Michael Lofton (81:10)

So major issues of salvific importance. They don't even agree on what those major issues are. They don't just disagree on the issues, they disagree on which ones are the.

Joe Heschmeyer (81:17)

I think if you go back to my first presentation and the reg and the regular fide. I think that you would find broad and deep agreement among pro.

Jay (81:24)

Come on, dude. Who actually believes that there's broad deep agreement by Protestants on quote, fundamentals. Doug can't even tell us what the fundamentals are. And then when he's asked, he says the lordship of Jesus Christ on the Bible, like Protestants don't agree on what that means. Every Protestant who believes in once saved, always saved and free grace will argue with the lordship salvation people that they're believing in a doctrine of works. Protestants will debate Protestants on what sola fide means. And some of the Protestants who are strict Reformation people will say if you think that your faith plays a role in justification, you are not saved because you are saying that that's a work. So this is not true. True.

Joe Heschmeyer (82:13)

And excuse me, I'm going to exclude

Michael Lofton (82:15)

the liberals who don't believe in liberals.

Jay (82:16)

Oh, wait a minute. Doug Wilson gets to exclude the liberal Protestants as not part of the process. So again Every time this has come up in this debate, Doug has shifted and moved the goalpost to be the true Protestant, the true Christian, is whomever Doug Wilson says agrees with Wilsonianism. Exactly.

Michael Lofton (82:35)

Basically saying among people practicing social scripture. Because I don't think it's a fair critique for you to point out Catholics who don't practice colicism or for me to point out Protestants don't practice.

Listener/Caller (82:41)

Great.

Joe Heschmeyer (82:41)

All right.

Michael Lofton (82:42)

People not using the method. If I say, oh, this lock didn't work and it turned out it didn't lock the door, that's not a knock on the lock.

Joe Heschmeyer (82:46)

So.

Jay (82:46)

So the papacy, according to Joe Heshmeyer, is a method which is going to give us unity. And I understand this line of argument. I fell for it when I was 21, when I became a Roman Catholic. Right. I heard this type of argumentation because it's the only thing the pop Roman Catholic apologists ever do is run this stupid low tier line of argument. And I fell for it naively thinking that, yes, the papacy will solve this, and it does do this. And then you spend 10 years in the world of Roman Catholicism and you realize, oh, it's actually just as bad as the Protestant world. It's just as crazy, it's just as fragmented, and it's just as unclear in actuality as the Protestant world. Notice what I said there. I understand that on paper, in theory, Roman Catholics have a modicum, a medium, a way that's going to give you this certitude and this doctrinal unity. In practice, that does not actually occur and it does not actually work. And it's a joke.

Joe Heschmeyer (83:41)

I've been involved in classical Christian education here in Moscow. And Logos School, which we founded, is a humming hive of ecumenicity. We've got Christians from all over educating our children together, respecting one another.

Jay (83:52)

Wait, Doug Wilson's sect that he created is a humming hive of acumen. Ecumenism. Well, Doug, what if ecumenism itself is a heresy? What if ecumenism is a Masonic project? So, like, this is so low tier, dude, it's.

Joe Heschmeyer (84:09)

And we differ on all these things.

Jay (84:10)

Now I'm beginning to understand. If I recall. Now, I may be wrong about this, but I recall. Oh, yes, Doug Wilson was actually going to be one of the. It was not going to be Lore Lodge. It was me, Tim Gordon and Doug Wilson were the original three way debate on Tim Cast.

Listener/Caller (84:31)

And

Jay (84:34)

I forget the girl's name. Who's the. The Tim Cast person. The. The scheduler person. She said Doug Wilson didn't want to do it. Interesting.

Listener/Caller (84:51)

You know, Jay, I think, you know what's really funny is I think I was thinking about this earlier today before I was going to work is a lot of these Protestant big name people, their very act of avoiding debate is what's going to cost them in the end.

Jay (85:05)

Yeah.

Listener/Caller (85:06)

Because they're not actually engaging with the arguments.

Joe Heschmeyer (85:09)

Yes.

Listener/Caller (85:09)

Only dealing with the surface. Like superficial.

Jay (85:12)

Yes.

Listener/Caller (85:13)

And I feel like at the end of the day they're going to be like, well, what's happening? And they're going to be a freaking out. Because I think at the, at the rate that it's going in 10 years.

Jay (85:21)

Yeah.

Listener/Caller (85:22)

I think the, I think the religious landscape is going to be very different.

Jay (85:25)

Right.

Listener/Caller (85:25)

They're going to feel like, I mean, do you see his recent comments about if America was a Protestant nation?

Jay (85:33)

Yeah. It's crazy.

Listener/Caller (85:36)

All his stuff, it's just like what are you talking about? And I feel like, I feel like we're watching sort of the, the coming of end of the dominance of Protestantism in America probably.

Jay (85:48)

I think there's a very good chance in 10 to 20 years that will, will change. And I think they are beginning to sense that that's coming and they are beginning to get scared. And that's exactly why since no one else will debate in this Protestant world, Doug Wilson decided to step up to it. However, again, he did not want to come. Now he'll, he could say I, I had a scheduling conflict, I wasn't interested, I couldn't do it. But I mean this has had 75, 000 views and the Tim cast debate has had almost 300000 views. So he didn't want to come on debate me and Tim Gordon, but he wants to debate on this smaller channel with a smaller name person. I mean, I don't know you're talking

Joe Heschmeyer (86:36)

about but there's a, there's a core and the core is what Paul says in First Corinthians 15. What I delivered to you was a first importance that Christ died, that he according to the scriptures and so that,

Michael Lofton (86:43)

but that, that doesn't include things like

Jay (86:45)

maybe I need to go a little more on the offensive and call out Doug Wilson to a public formal debate. Because I mean I'm smelling blood here. Like I'm like a shark in the waters, dude. I'm smelling blood. And I'm actually a little surprised how low tier Doug Wilson is here.

Michael Lofton (87:03)

The deity of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15. That's not on his list in the Corinthian creed. Yeah, so that clearly can't be everything. Right?

Joe Heschmeyer (87:08)

Well, that list is not exhaustive.

Michael Lofton (87:10)

Okay?

Joe Heschmeyer (87:10)

But that list coupled with first John gives you the deity of Christ.

Listener/Caller (87:13)

Who.

Joe Heschmeyer (87:13)

Who Christ is and what he did.

Listener/Caller (87:14)

That.

Michael Lofton (87:15)

That's. Do Protestants disagree about what Christ did? Who he is? Do they describe things like whether.

Jay (87:18)

Oh, come on, dog. You have to know. So notice how low tier Protestantism is. So low tier that it's actually just saying if you mouth the proposition, Jesus is Lord and he died for our sins, and I believe in the Trinity, then you're part of the Protestant communion. But dog, every Mormon can fr. Can say those same phrases. Dude, just a Mormonism itself right there refutes this whole thing.

Michael Lofton (87:40)

Christ had a human will.

Jay (87:42)

No.

Joe Heschmeyer (87:43)

Well, people, do you mind?

Michael Lofton (87:44)

Craig, right?

Joe Heschmeyer (87:44)

Yeah.

Michael Lofton (87:44)

Is he not.

Joe Heschmeyer (87:45)

He's a heretic.

Jay (87:46)

Oh, he's a heretic. Doug Wilson says William Lane Craig's a heretic. But wait a minute. According to Doug Wilson's Protestant theology of ecumenism, doesn't he just attend a normal Southern Baptist church? What we. Lane Craig. So if he believes Jesus is Lord and mouths that proposition, why does he not make the cut? This is so arbitrary, dude, that.

Michael Lofton (88:08)

That's. Do Protestants disagree about what Christ did, who he is? Do they disagree about things like.

Jay (88:11)

Yeah, William Lake Craig is an apollinarian. He disagrees with everybody else whether Christ

Michael Lofton (88:16)

had a human will.

Jay (88:18)

Yeah, this is right. He's going straight to William Lane Craig.

Michael Lofton (88:22)

It doesn't seem like you're guarding against heresy. If you can practice solace scriptura and be as brilliant and intentional about your Christianity as willing Craig is. Is the issue. He's not smart enough that he's not reading Scripture.

Joe Heschmeyer (88:30)

The issues.

Jay (88:30)

Yeah, exactly. Why. And by the way, it's for both of these people, actually, for all three of these people will name Craig Joe Heschmeyer. And for goober face, they're all. The problem is all that they have a sunken cost policy.

Joe Heschmeyer (88:47)

It's too smart.

Michael Lofton (88:48)

Okay, so what hope is there?

Jay (88:49)

Go ahead, Wilson.

Listener/Caller (88:50)

Have some funky trinitarian.

Jay (88:53)

Oh, that's right. I forgot. What? Yes, Doug Wilson. Doug Wilson has a heterodox view of the Trinity. I forgot about that. I remember reading that a couple years ago. Or somebody sent. Was it you? Somebody sent me an article that Doug Wilson wrote defending the Trinity. And it was like, dude, what the heck is he making? Just making up weird ass nonsense just out of nowhere, like the. What was it? The father is authority. The son is what? How's it go?

Listener/Caller (89:19)

The son is obedience. I think he says. I think This. I forget what he says about the spirit, but I just thought it was so odd. Yeah, because if he's gonna call William Lane Craig out for being a heritage.

Jay (89:31)

Good point.

Listener/Caller (89:32)

Other prosecutors didn't say the same about him.

Jay (89:33)

Exactly. And his view is probably five times weirder, if I remember correctly, from whatever nonsense he was saying in the article.

Michael Lofton (89:40)

For smart people within Protestant.

Joe Heschmeyer (89:41)

There's very little hope for smart people anywhere.

Michael Lofton (89:44)

All right, if I may, I want to actually pivot. Do we agree, Sol, Scripture was not true during the apostolic age, that scripture was not the solid fable rule of faith?

Joe Heschmeyer (89:51)

Sure. Because Scripture was not.

Michael Lofton (89:52)

Okay. Do we agree that Scripture never teaches?

Jay (89:54)

So he. Again, I don't. These people are. It's unreal when they admit this. Because he. Right. Trent Horn got James White to admit the same point. Right. So let's hear this again. Now, remember, if Solo scripture was not true in the patristic era. Is that what he said? But it's true now because it's codified. I mean, what?

Michael Lofton (90:18)

Scripture was not true during the apostolic age?

Jay (90:20)

The scripture was the apostolic age. Okay.

Michael Lofton (90:22)

The soul and foul rule of faith. Sure.

Joe Heschmeyer (90:23)

Because scripture was not.

Michael Lofton (90:24)

Okay. Do we agree that Scripture never teaches that it is the soul and fallible rule of faith?

Joe Heschmeyer (90:27)

No, we don't agree there.

Michael Lofton (90:28)

Where does it teach that it is? Deuteronomy 6, as I said, when Deuteronomy 6 was written, was those scripture true?

Joe Heschmeyer (90:33)

It was.

Michael Lofton (90:33)

You had a living prophet named Moses.

Jay (90:34)

Yeah.

Michael Lofton (90:35)

They weren't supposed to listen to anything he said, just what he wrote.

Joe Heschmeyer (90:36)

No, you're supposed to listen.

Michael Lofton (90:37)

I think they're supposed to do the whole word of God.

Joe Heschmeyer (90:38)

Right, Right.

Michael Lofton (90:39)

And didn't we already establish the word of God includes both the written and the oral?

Joe Heschmeyer (90:41)

I'm not talking about Deuteronomy 6 at the time of Deuteronomy 6 being written.

Michael Lofton (90:44)

Okay, so.

Jay (90:45)

Wait, what? So Deuteronomy 6 is a revised interpretation after the canon, did it change?

Joe Heschmeyer (90:53)

No, it doesn't.

Jay (90:54)

Yes, exactly. Does this change?

Joe Heschmeyer (90:56)

There's such a thing as progressive revelation. Yeah, sure, right.

Michael Lofton (90:57)

Where in progressive revelation does it teach

Joe Heschmeyer (90:59)

once the canon of Scripture is complete?

Jay (91:01)

Where does scripture teach that once the canon of scripture is complete, then sola scriptura goes into effect.

Michael Lofton (91:08)

What verse is that?

Joe Heschmeyer (91:09)

Deuteronomy 6. And.

Jay (91:11)

But Deuteronomy 6 doesn't teach that when sola script. When the Scriptures are codified, then sola scriptura goes into effect.

Joe Heschmeyer (91:17)

All the rejections of false teachers in Colossians, in First John, in Galatians.

Michael Lofton (91:22)

Okay, so I believe we should accept the full Word of God. And we should reject false teachers? Yeah. How does that get me to sell the Scripture? I already rejected false teachers and accepted the whole Word. No, I accept more of the Word of God than you do.

Joe Heschmeyer (91:29)

You've quoted a few false teachers.

Michael Lofton (91:30)

I mean, I've accepted seven books the early Christians accept that you reject. Like Origen describes how the Christians accept books that were rejected by the Jews. On what biblical basis do you say the early Christians got the Bible wrong first?

Joe Heschmeyer (91:40)

Origen was.

Michael Lofton (91:41)

I know he was a little. Yeah, but he's describing what the Jews like. I would say Christians under the origin.

Joe Heschmeyer (91:46)

I don't trust origins.

Michael Lofton (91:47)

So you're saying he's just lying about the fact that he used Tobit and Judith?

Joe Heschmeyer (91:49)

No, I think he was mistaken.

Michael Lofton (91:50)

Like you're saying. Okay, let me unpack this. Origen says in passing in his letter to Africanus that the Christians in his day, all of the churches, used Tobit and Judith. You're saying he was wrong about that and, like, he didn't know and Africanus didn't know.

Joe Heschmeyer (92:01)

Outside of Palestine, when the Septuagint was the Old Testament translated into Greek, the Septuagint included those books.

Michael Lofton (92:07)

That's right. Okay, doesn't that point to the fact that Jews didn't have a closed canon at the time of Christ?

Joe Heschmeyer (92:09)

The Jews of the dispersion were a lot more liberal than the Jews, like

Michael Lofton (92:13)

the noble Bereans in Greece.

Joe Heschmeyer (92:15)

Yeah.

Michael Lofton (92:15)

So they had the Septuagint, which has those extra books, as you said, and they're praised for reading those Scriptures.

Joe Heschmeyer (92:20)

Yes, and for not accepting they were more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica. They searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Jay (92:26)

Yeah, but the canon that they're using has the dual cannon dog.

Joe Heschmeyer (92:29)

1711. They received it with eagerness, but they checked it out against Scripture.

Michael Lofton (92:32)

But I'm asking about the books. How do you know which of them had the right Bible? Because you mentioned the Septuagint has this larger canon. The vast majority of citations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are to the Septuagint. Yeah, so why would I believe that your Bible today is the right one and not the Bible used by.

Joe Heschmeyer (92:44)

Because all the quotations from the Septuagint. There are no quotations from those disputed books.

Michael Lofton (92:48)

There's several books.

Jay (92:48)

No, that's not true. There's countless New Testament allusions, references and citations to the Deuterocanon. So Doug Wilson is an idiot.

Michael Lofton (92:55)

They aren't quoted at all. So is your standard that if A book isn't quoted that it's not inspired.

Joe Heschmeyer (92:58)

That's one of the standards. That's one of the standards. The fundamental standard is, by the way,

Jay (93:01)

how do we know that the standard of validity is if it's quoted? That's an arbitrary statement that. I mean, maybe it is the case. But how does Doug Wilson know that? Where does he derive that? He just arbitrarily says that's a, that's a criterion.

Joe Heschmeyer (93:15)

I want to use the canon of Old Testament that was used in Palestine, in Israel.

Jay (93:18)

Why are we supposed to know. How do we know that it's the quote canon that's used in Palestine, Israel? This is again begging the question. What, how do, where does that standard come from, Dog? It's just a Protestant given it's a Protestant assumption by Jesus and the Apostles. Okay, but no Jesus and the apostles. The apostles specifically, Jesus is not. We don't know what canon Jesus is using in the sense of like when Jesus references things in the Gospels. The Gospels are recording him typically in every one of them. But Matthew citing Septuagint text. So Matthew in a couple places is using. Well, actually Matthew I think in many places is using the Proto Masoretic because Jews would not have accepted the, the Greek translation. Right. So if Matthew's audience is a Jewish audience and he wants to convince them, that's why he cites at times the Proto Masoretic. But the apostles. So what he said there is false. The apostles almost unanimously are citing the Deuterocanonical or the Septuagint.

Michael Lofton (94:20)

What evidence do we have that there was a closed Jewish canon in Palestine at the time of Jesus?

Jay (94:23)

Exactly. This was an assertion that Doug Wilson just stated.

Joe Heschmeyer (94:27)

We, we know that the, the Israelite canon differed from the.

Jay (94:31)

How do we know that? Where is the evidence of this? He's just asserting it.

Joe Heschmeyer (94:35)

Canon in the dispersion.

Jay (94:36)

By the way, that's not true. Even according to most Protestant scholars, that we don't know that there was a defined canon of the Jews at the time of Christ in Israel. This is another assertion.

Michael Lofton (94:49)

First five books of the Bible, they were ongoing rabbinic debates about books like,

Jay (94:51)

by the Way, there's debates about whether there even was a Council of Jamnia. Right. The later rabbinic decision to have a

Michael Lofton (94:57)

Masoretic Hebrew text, Esther, Song of Solomon. What evidence do we have that they had a single canon?

Jay (95:02)

Yeah, exactly. Good point.

Michael Lofton (95:03)

Jesus.

Joe Heschmeyer (95:04)

Jesus says from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.

Jay (95:08)

Are you serious? Jesus says from Abel to Zechariah and he thinks that's an argument for a textual tradition. So the arguments from Abel to Zechariah, that's not an argument about the. The canon. It's an argument about prophets. And by the way, nobody says the Maccabees are prophet texts. They're historical texts. What is he talking about?

Joe Heschmeyer (95:32)

From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.

Jay (95:35)

Yeah, that has nothing to do with canon. That's not a canonical statement.

Michael Lofton (95:38)

Go on.

Joe Heschmeyer (95:39)

All right, which is Genesis to Second Chronicles.

Michael Lofton (95:41)

In Second Chronicles, the Zechariah killed. Is that the son of Barakai? The son of Edo?

Joe Heschmeyer (95:43)

That's a problem.

Michael Lofton (95:44)

Okay, Zechariah, who's the son of Barakai, is heresy or not The Prophet Zechariah. Zechariah 1, a completely different person. Like your, your idea that Jesus is saying that the canon is closed and because he mentioned Zechariah, the son of Barakaya.

Jay (95:54)

Yeah, this is a stupid argument. Dude, this is so dumb.

Michael Lofton (95:56)

This means you'd have to believe these things. It sounds like, number one, that the Jewish canon is closed. Number two, that it's also in order, which wasn't a thing that existed because

Jay (96:02)

it didn't exactly have books.

Joe Heschmeyer (96:04)

They were all on scrolls.

Michael Lofton (96:05)

And number two, in Two Chronicles, like the modern Jewish Bible does.

Joe Heschmeyer (96:08)

The Jews did.

Michael Lofton (96:08)

The Jewish Bible today doesn't even follow the same order as the Talmud's order of the Bible.

Joe Heschmeyer (96:12)

Right.

Michael Lofton (96:12)

And so we know that didn't exist in Jews this day because it's medieval in its origin. Like your whole argument is assuming this, this thing we know to be medieval must.

Jay (96:18)

Oh, oh, that sounds like a sick burn right here.

Michael Lofton (96:23)

Existed in the first century because you've mistaken two different Zechariah.

Joe Heschmeyer (96:26)

Ah, I'm not mistaken. I'm well aware of the problem. Okay, who's who. Which Zechariah it is. But it, it looks an awful lot. The way Jesus formulates it. It's from the blood of.

Jay (96:36)

No, the way Jesus formulates it is just restating the thing in question. Doug able.

Joe Heschmeyer (96:42)

It looks like from Genesis to Revelation, that's how it comes.

Michael Lofton (96:43)

But only if you miss.

Jay (96:44)

Only if you assume this error.

Michael Lofton (96:47)

Right. Well, if.

Joe Heschmeyer (96:48)

If that is in fact a problem, it seems like. Oh, sure, it seems like a problem.

Jay (96:51)

Okay, thanks. Okay, so he got him. I think that was a good gotcha there. Yeah, thank you for that. I'm glad we went into that sort of diversion there. That actually was. Was a pretty good cross examination there. I think Joe Hashmeier definitely destroyed Doug Wilson there. But Doug did have one good point. Point out of all that, what do you think?

Listener/Caller (97:14)

Yeah, I'd agree. That's. I was, I was really hoping you would. You would have done a quick review on it because I thought there were a lot of things that you picked from. I think ultimately, for me, it reveals the inefficiencies on both the Roman Catholic system and the Protestant system. Because for me, I'm, you know, I'm. I'm. I'm going into Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm looking to meet with the priest this month on doing formal catechesis. And so I've been actually really curious about how this debate gets received by a lot of the reformed guys. And so, yeah, I was, I was hoping to try to get your attention on it because it literally just dropped yesterday. So.

Jay (97:52)

Yeah, appreciate that. And I would add, too, a long time ago. And it's on my ex. If you look under articles, I posted both of my old essays about. Oh, I thought I did. Well, they're at my website. So if you go to Jay's analysis and type in canon, you'll get two articles I wrote a long time ago when I was first dealing with this issue in responding to Protestants. I'd already become Catholic, but I went and dug up a bunch of Protestant scholars on this topic. So the first article is this one. Why does this take forever to load? Come on, dude. Refutation of the Protestant canon of Scripture. This is the, I think the longer one. And you'll notice when you read this that most of what Doug Wilson was saying was incorrect. And a lot of what Joe Heshmeyer talked about, not everything, but a lot of it comes up in this article. This is actually from like 2005 or 6 I reposted in 2019. But there's another article too that I wrote that goes along with this one. And it will just refute a lot of the minutia assertions that Doug Wilson made. Like, oh, the, the apostles, they had the. The Israeli Jewish canon. No, they didn't. It's not true. Okay, so let's see. There's refutation of the Protestant canon and then response to some. Here's a part two. Oh, there's three of these. Excuse me. Okay, here's three separate articles here. If you type in canon in the search at the website, you'll get all three of these. Oh, man. Why is it being slow?

Joe Heschmeyer (100:18)

Reputation.

Jay (100:19)

The processing can of Scripture, part 2. And this might be the same article twice. I'm not sure. I don't remember. This was so long ago. I'm putting these in the chat so you guys can figure it out if they're the same or not. Anyway, I, I. All I'm saying is like I dealt with this issue what Doug Wilson's talking about about 20 years ago and pretty much everything he says not true. So you and you can see this from Protestant scholars. So the mook $5. At least the corrupt late medieval Italian papacy had drip. Doug Wilson, the Pope of the Reformed Baptist has no such luck. Exactly. TX right. $20. Thank you for all that you do. I'm a big fan, Jay. I'm going through the fifth Holy Week as a baptized Orthodox Christian. Much love from Canada. That's great man. Supa scion says for $5. Congratulations. 200k arota $5. Glad that you had a ch a chat with Bryce and reconciled. You're both favorites. Yeah, we had a good good conversation. Seems like a good dude. Dark brain$5. Did you hear Andrew Wilson is going to box Brian Shapiro. No, I didn't hear about that. They made a fifty thousand dollar bet in three months. It's organized by Uncensored America should be funny. Oh, that's going to be great. Culper cast $5. Congratulations on the podcast tour that you did. You deserve it. Thank you. Sean Patterson. Remember that time that scam Shamu told Jay that he's the son of Satan. Stupid bastard. Queer bait. And then two minutes later said bro, I love you. I think you're dealing with a bipolar person. Chance Ma. Chance your mom. $20. What are your thoughts on people who say no? We did that one earlier. Excuse me. Cool bear could have $20. An inquirer I knew tried to be an orthodox debater without any blessing. He had never even stepped foot in a church. You know, this is a huge mistake. He switched to Roman Catholic so that he could yap on theology. Sam Shamoon gives me the exact same vibe. They have a desire to. To yap and keep the cash coming in. Yeah, I don't know their motives, but you can judge it by the manifesting. Who manifests more than the guy that's always talking about everybody manifesting ultra void. $10. With government disclosure of alien re. Alien stuff, does it really matter if there's an absence of physical evidence? Will the government disclosure really matter if there's an absence of physical evidence? Would that backfire? Because there would be more likely propaganda. I'm not sure what the question is asking, but I mean they, they could also conceivably manufacture physical evidence if they wanted to. I think you see that with Roswell. I think those are basically just psyops. I think mj12 itself was a psyop to get people to. To think, oh, the government is covering up aliens, and we need to get the word out. So I actually think Majestic and all of that itself is a psyop to promote the idea of aliens existing. And I showed you guys on my Twitter. Right. I put up the article from Brenda Densler, the academic who writes on the history of alien cults. She's a professor, and her book argues that in the 1960s, they had already figured out through Brookings Institute reports that alien disclosure would have a huge effect on upsetting the Christian civilization of the West. And it's all right there. Now. Does that prove that it's all a conspiracy? I'm not saying that. I'm saying that this is a piece of evidence that shows that they have studied since the 1960s, the discombobulation that would occur in the religious sphere. And in a civilizational sense, should they, quote, announce alien life and that this could re. Engineer and retool the religious bases of Western civilization. That's what I'm saying. I don't even think they need physical evidence. I think people don't. People will just. I don't know. It's hard to say. A lot of the normies will believe whatever they're told. So I think probably a lot of people will fall for this delusion, and they'll accept it if they just say that there's aliens. And, I mean, who's actually going to be able to investigate the, quote, physical evidence anyway, right? It would just be like some government scientists saying, we have. I've seen the physical evidence. I mean, you just had that. That senator the other day, say, we were briefed in Congress, and that Southern guy. I forget his name, but he was. Y' all wouldn't believe what we were told. And they're trying to keep the alien stuff secret, but the people need to know. Dude, it's a psyop, you dummy. And I've been. I've been here since the beginning. The first podcast I ever uploaded, y' all know what it was? Well, actually, it was the second or third. It was the Collins brothers about the alien psyop in, like, 2012. So I've been on the psyop train telling y' all forever. It's a big bunch of nonsense. Neil Edmiston, $5 Jay, I would be curious to talk about Galatians 6:16 before you hang up the stream. I'm a TR enjoyer. What's TR enjoyer? I don't know what that is. Are you saying you are TR Enjoyer? Are you Neil here? Is that you, Neil? Unmute. Are you there? So the New Testament writers consistently talk about the church as the new Israel. It's kind of a no brainer. And somebody was quoting some evangelical dispensational goober was quoting at me actually screaming in all caps the other day. He was like, when James says he's writing to the tribes scattered abroad, that means he's talking to the Jews. Dude, they're calling the church the 12 tribes scattered abroad. Peter says you are a holy nation, a royal priesthood writing to gentile churches. So I don't. Neil, you fell off. I don't see you. Doug, about De Palma. $5. I'm a big fan. I'm thoroughly enjoying your philosophy course. Thank you for all that. You do appreciate that. Yeah, guys, if you do want to study philosophy at a fairly serious academic level, I do have a philosophy course which you can buy in the show description at the Autonomy Agora Marketplace. The link is right here and it's through Richard Grove's website, Good friend of mine for many years. And it is a full introduction to Western Philosophy course as equivalent to a college or grad school lecture going through the Presocratics all the way up to Plato and excuse me, Nietzsche and postmodernism is where it ends. I do have guest professors come on to speak as well. Tj, you want to try again or Neil.

Listener/Caller (107:39)

Hey, you got me, Jay. All right, there we go. Yeah, I was just watching one of your videos and you. You seem to equate the Israel God as. As kind of the. The church as it supersedes Israel. But I don't know how you arrived to that conclusion.

Jay (107:53)

Based on the text there, Peter writes what's called a Catholic Epistle and he writes to the a bunch of Gentile converts who. And he says you are a chosen generation royal priest of the holy nation. Isn't that a terminology that applies to quote Israel? Well, I'm.

Listener/Caller (108:11)

First of all, I'm talking about Galatians 6, 16 in particular.

Jay (108:15)

But dude, come on.

Listener/Caller (108:16)

Says something's like. It doesn't equate.

Jay (108:18)

He doesn't say like it. He says you are that the gentile churches. This is called a Catholic Epistle, meaning that it's written to many churches, including Gentile churches, and they are given the titles that are applicable to Israel because the church is the fulfillment of Israel.

Listener/Caller (108:35)

Okay, let's go, let's. Let's go back to that. I'm curious about 6:16, though.

Michael Lofton (108:40)

Like, how do you.

Jay (108:41)

Galatians 6:16 is saying the same thing as Peter.

Listener/Caller (108:47)

Then why is it, why is it denoting two groups, though? Because the Israel of God, from my opinion, would be that subset of believing Jews within the church.

Jay (108:57)

It doesn't matter whether you're circumcised or uncircumcised. That's Paul's point. That's Peter's point. Because in baptism, everybody is a son of God and a child of God in the seed of Abraham.

Listener/Caller (109:08)

Right, but that doesn't mean ethnic Israel isn't a thing anymore. It's. It just refers that we are, we're all the same, we're a new creation. That doesn't mean ethnic Israel is done and that the church has superseded it. See, you see, that's okay.

Jay (109:23)

Matthew concepts. No, it's not. Matthew 22, or excuse me, 21, Jesus says to the Pharisees and to the Jews, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing the fruits thereof.

Listener/Caller (109:40)

Yeah, I'd have to pull up that verse.

Jay (109:41)

But again, why do you.

Listener/Caller (109:43)

It's taking it from that those Pharisees. Right. Obviously those Pharisees aren't going to receive it because they rejected their Messiah. And that nation bearing the fruits will be Israel in the future.

Jay (109:57)

No, the nation is the Gentile Church called the nation. The same thing that First Peter 2 is talking about. You are a Holy Spirit priesthood, a chosen nation. It's the same nation as Peter's talking about.

Listener/Caller (110:11)

Again, that, that's, that's pretty weak.

Jay (110:14)

Weak sauce again.

Listener/Caller (110:15)

I want to go.

Jay (110:16)

How is it weak sauce when he, when he says the kingdom of God is taken from you and Peter says that the holy nation is the Gentile churches.

Listener/Caller (110:26)

I don't know. I, I.

Jay (110:27)

You're saying, I don't know. And it's weak sauce. I know the time. You don't want to go to these passages because they refute your nonsense. What is 1st Peter 2. 9 talking about?

Listener/Caller (110:37)

I just. Because something is, is like something.

Jay (110:40)

It doesn't. Where does it say like? Where does it say like.

Listener/Caller (110:44)

Where does Peter say that Israel is the church? Why, why doesn't he just say that? Why?

Jay (110:49)

They do say that. When James says writing, I'm writing to the, to the tribes spread abroad. It's the church that is the tribes.

Listener/Caller (110:58)

Yeah, again. Again.

Jay (111:00)

Because Peter 1 Peter 2. Where does 1st Peter 2. 9 say like?

Listener/Caller (111:04)

That's a fallacy.

Jay (111:05)

No, it's not. Where does 1st Peter 2:9 say like, I'm not saying.

Listener/Caller (111:09)

It doesn't say like.

Jay (111:10)

But again, just because you said what you just said, now you're lying. Now you're lying. Stop lying. You just said like a minute ago and then you said, I didn't say like, so you lied.

Listener/Caller (111:20)

No, no, I'm not saying I didn't say like. I'm saying the text doesn't. Doesn't say like.

Jay (111:24)

You just argued. It's you. Now you're lying because you're lying because you said that the meaning of the text is. Is something's. Like something. But now you're saying, well, but the text doesn't have to say like. Where are you getting that? It doesn't say that.

Listener/Caller (111:38)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that just Peter can draw similarities, but that doesn't equate the two. That's a false equivalence fallacy.

Jay (111:46)

Does he call the church of the. Of Gentiles a royal priesthood, a holy nation and his special chosen people?

Listener/Caller (111:55)

Yes, he does.

Jay (111:55)

Okay. Are those the appellations of Israel in the Old Testament?

Listener/Caller (112:00)

Yes. That's.

Jay (112:01)

That's basically okay. So the church is Israel. Thank you. So the church is Israel. Thank you.

Listener/Caller (112:08)

No, again, just because some. Just because you can draw similarities doesn't mean.

Jay (112:13)

Where are you getting that he's drawing a similarity when he says you are that. That the only thing that exists is the royal priesthood of Melchizedek. Did the Jews have the priesthood of Melchizedek?

Listener/Caller (112:24)

No.

Jay (112:25)

Oh, thank you. So there is no royal chosen nation or priesthood outside of the church. You just proved my point again.

Listener/Caller (112:32)

No, I. Again, you're kind of. You have to bring in a lot of baggage to that.

Jay (112:36)

I have to bring in baggage. You're just saying. No, no, you're bringing in nothing. You just admitted my point by saying that Jews don't have the priesthood of Melchizedek. Does the church have it?

Listener/Caller (112:49)

No, I'm not. I'm not talking about.

Jay (112:51)

I'm asking you that. I'm asking you that. Do the Jews have the priesthood of Melchizedek or does the church have it?

Listener/Caller (113:01)

No, I'm not sure. I. I need to look into that.

Jay (113:03)

You don't know what Hebrews says and what. What every. Stop interrupting me. Every time Psalm 110 is quoted in the New Testament Testament about the priesthood of Melchizedek, it is Christ's priesthood in the church. And Hebrews 7 says that the church is the priesthood of Melchizedek. So do the Jews have that?

Listener/Caller (113:21)

No.

Jay (113:21)

Then they don't have the priesthood and they're not the chosen nation. You prove my point again.

Listener/Caller (113:27)

Okay, so does that mean that every, every, all the, the promises have been canceled then, or fulfilled or superseded?

Jay (113:34)

The only way the Jews get access to those promises is when they convert to Christ, as Romans 11 says.

Sam Shamoon (113:38)

Says

Listener/Caller (113:41)

so.

Jay (113:42)

Okay, so you refuted yourself and had been in my point this whole time, like 28.

Listener/Caller (113:47)

What would that be based on? Romans 11? 28, 30.

Jay (113:51)

Sure.

Listener/Caller (113:52)

Let me pull that up real quick again. I, I just don't.

Jay (113:57)

Well, do you know why you don't do, do you know why you don't understand this?

Listener/Caller (114:02)

No, I'm exploring this idea.

Jay (114:03)

Right, but the reason that, and I, I, I, I, I commend you for that. But the reason that you're confused on this is because you're not in the church. The Orthodox Church is the only church. So you're confused about this because you're under dispensational Judaized influence?

Listener/Caller (114:19)

I don't know about that. I think it's pretty clear, at least from my limited understanding that, you know, anti nicene, a large, you know, anti nicene church fathers were pre millennial. I think it's pretty clear. And you can chalk it up too.

Jay (114:35)

Well, first of all. Yeah, well, first of all, the fact that a couple of the church fathers were pre millennial does not equate to pre millennial Zionism or the idea that they don't have any of the same. Do they have any of the same views on Israel that modern evangelicals have?

Listener/Caller (114:48)

No, no, I'm definitely not clear.

Jay (114:50)

Okay, well, so that has nothing to do then this or that church father being premillennial has nothing to do with this point. So that's irrelevant.

Listener/Caller (114:58)

Right, but pre millennialism kind of has. There's a distinction between Israel and the Church because there would be a, a future restored Israel in the thousand years.

Jay (115:07)

Can you name a church father that teaches that the church is not the replacement or the fulfillment of Israel?

Listener/Caller (115:16)

I, I could. I haven't read through all the church fathers, but my guess is Barnabas, Irenaeus, or.

Jay (115:23)

I know it's Irenaeus. And no, Irenaeus does not teach that. That's a bunch of nonsense I've read. Again, it's Irenaeus, not Irenaeus. And no, he does not teach that the Jews still have a covenant or that they're the chosen people. That's not, that's totally false. He teaches the church. He's a bishop in the church, dude.

Listener/Caller (115:41)

No, I, I haven't read him, but.

Jay (115:43)

Well then how would you cite him? And why would you think you know what he says? All right, this is. This is.

Listener/Caller (115:48)

I have a citation.

Jay (115:50)

Yeah, so you have a quote. Mine, you haven't actually read him, so you're done. Get out of here. This is non sense. You need to read Galatians and Hebrews. But before all of that, before you try to read the Bible and decode it, you need to realize who put the Bible together, bro. All right, guys, I can't do anymore. It's too late. Who's next? Imperial Forge. Oh, this lunatic. All this guy does is stream incessantly that I'm. I work for Dugan or some nonsense. And of course, he can't even connect. I'm waiting for you to connect. I want to hear how I work for Dugan and I'm a Russian agent or whatever nonsense that you've come up with. It's funny, too, how the people who say they don't ever have any evidence, it's just like, oh, he did a. He interviewed a person one time, so he works for them. Anyway, please, guys, if you would clip that, because I think that was a good quick refutation of the judaizing error and heresy of these people. I'm waiting for you to connect. Dude, dude, come out and come back in. I want to hear about how I work for Dugan. I'm going to invite you to speak. He ran away. Only. What's up, man? He just wants clips for his 100 subscriber channel only. What's up? I'm mute. Unmute. Dude, Are you there? Man? This is like the worst night for freaking people. Trying to call in. Dude. Nobody can get in here. Jesse, what's up?

Listener/Caller (118:24)

Hello?

Jay (118:25)

Yep. Oh, my God. Jay. What's up, man?

Listener/Caller (118:28)

Dude, huge thank. Congrats on 200K.

Jay (118:30)

Thank you. What's up, man?

Michael Lofton (118:32)

Not too much.

Jay (118:32)

I had a couple questions.

Listener/Caller (118:34)

So a little bit about philosophy and kind of the philosophy of ghosts and the belief in the supernatural.

Jay (118:43)

I heard you talk with a listener earlier.

Listener/Caller (118:44)

Kind of piqued my interest.

Jay (118:46)

Kind of bumpy.

Listener/Caller (118:47)

Occult and stuff like that.

Jay (118:48)

To preface it, I'm Greek Orthodox. I have been for about 11, 12 years. My wife is Greek, so I had no choice, and.

Listener/Caller (118:54)

But I was cool with it.

Jay (118:55)

You know, I grew up as a

Listener/Caller (118:57)

Christian my whole life, but so I. I kind of interested in the topic.

Jay (119:01)

But, you know, I know that it's. It's kind of a big no. No, but just going back to philosophy real quick.

Listener/Caller (119:06)

If you go to, like, Plato and

Jay (119:08)

Plutarch, these guys from what I understand, they believed in some sort of like

Listener/Caller (119:14)

supernatural being, the possibility of ghosts being real.

Jay (119:18)

I might be wrong about that,

Listener/Caller (119:21)

but

Michael Lofton (119:21)

I was kind of curious about your thoughts.

Jay (119:23)

I mean, I don't, I don't recall off the top of my head what their statements were on that kind of stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised. But I mean, Serfim Rose has a good discussion of this. Father serving Rose in soul after death. And you know, he speculates about kind of maybe the souls are kind of hanging around for a while after death. So I mean, that's probably, probably the, the best I could come up with. But I'm not trying to be rude. It's kind of late at night. What's up, man? Last. Yo, what's up, Jake? What's on your mind? Born Catholic here.

Listener/Caller (120:01)

I just had a couple of thoughts

Jay (120:03)

that I wanted to run by you, get your opinion.

Listener/Caller (120:06)

So have you ever heard that story

Jay (120:08)

of the Protestant family who was living

Listener/Caller (120:10)

in France and, and basically their church was shared between Catholics and Protestants, and

Jay (120:18)

then the lady in the family started

Listener/Caller (120:21)

to get more into Catholic Saints and then St. Francis appeared to her along

Jay (120:27)

with St. Seraphim of Sarov.

Listener/Caller (120:33)

No, it's told by.

Jay (120:35)

No, I don't know about this, but I mean this is, this is a funny thing because, I mean, does it. Would Sam Shamoon, could he use that to prove his made up ecumenical apostolic Christianity?

Listener/Caller (120:46)

No, I was just mentioning because I

Jay (120:48)

was actually in a CC a couple years ago when I heard about this.

Listener/Caller (120:52)

It's. I looked it up.

Jay (120:53)

It's told by someone named Archimandrite Lazarus

Listener/Caller (120:56)

Moore in his book Saint sir from Usarov.

Jay (120:59)

But I only mentioned this because I

Listener/Caller (121:03)

wanted to ask about like invisible communion with the Orthodox Church.

Jay (121:08)

Is there a concept. I've been studying Orthodoxy, let's say for

Listener/Caller (121:12)

the past year or so or more than that. Is there a concept of like someone like, that's not visibly in communion with the church?

Jay (121:24)

Not really. Unless it, unless you're referring to like extra normative means by which God might join a person to the mystical body. But yeah, that. Yeah, but I mean that's not this, that's not the invisible church because we still think that they would be in some way, you know, joined to Christ. So to the mystical body, it's just extra normative. But that's not invisible in the sense of like the way the reformers try to formulate it.

Listener/Caller (121:50)

Okay. And I don't know much about what the reformers say, but like, what would that look like?

Jay (121:55)

So basically when as we were talking about earlier when the, the Roman Catholic opponents of Luther and Calvin and others were arguing that the Reformation had not maintained any kind of ecclesial structure that was in continuity with previous Christianity. Their response was to say that, well, the institutional structure is really secondary because what matters most is whether you're part of the invisible church. And thus they could maintain the idea that the visible Christianity is divided amongst a bunch of sects, but the true elect are the ones that are amongst Rome, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc, so invisible church was a kind of way for them to skirt the question about public visible unity.

Listener/Caller (122:43)

Okay, but there is this concept like apart from that of the extra normative means.

Jay (122:49)

Yeah, I think that it's a similar idea to like baptism of desire or baptism, baptism of blood. But I don't think we would extend that the way that roaming Catholics and, and many Protestants do to want to have this sort of ecumenist idea that oh well then we're all, you know, basically almost in the church or something like that. There's only one orthodox holy Catholic Church. The rest of the churches are either schismatic or heterodox. And. But that's not a judgment on individual people. So God's the judge of individual people. But, but hopefully that answers that question. Guitar what's up? I was wanting this crazy dude to come back in here, but I don't think he will.

Listener/Caller (123:30)

Hello?

Jay (123:30)

Yeah, what's up?

Listener/Caller (123:34)

So I was having a debate with

Jay (123:35)

a buddy of mine who's non denominational and I would say the area that I'm around is like non, you know, primarily non denominational.

Listener/Caller (123:44)

So when you bring up like church history and church fathers, they kind of like just dismiss it as nothing. How would you kind of pull them out of the idea that non denomination on itself is kind of a denomination?

Jay (123:59)

I mean again, this is just super low tier stuff. It's like they don't understand that maybe just they need more basic stuff. I wouldn't even try to argue that. I would just say, look, let's look at Christianity for the first 300 years, try to argue that route. Mayonnaise, what's up?

Listener/Caller (124:20)

Oh, can you hear me?

Jay (124:21)

Yes sir, what's up?

Listener/Caller (124:24)

Hey, congrats on 200k, Jen.

Jay (124:26)

Thank you.

Listener/Caller (124:28)

I had one thing or actually two things if you don't mind. Just that one Judy Izing recharge you

Jay (124:35)

had on there a few people ago.

Listener/Caller (124:37)

All he's got to do is read

Jay (124:40)

the end of Romans 11 where it

Listener/Caller (124:41)

talks about the branches literally being broken off.

Jay (124:46)

Yeah, the gentiles can be grafted in. Sure. Yeah.

Listener/Caller (124:50)

That's pretty self explanatory.

Jay (124:51)

Yeah, well, so is. Yeah, well, right. But so is the kingdom is taken from you. So, I mean. Yeah, they're all good proofs. Exactly. Mihailo, what's up, man? I want. There's a crazy communist. I want him to come. Where's he at?

Listener/Caller (125:08)

Hello?

Jay (125:09)

Yeah, what's up?

Listener/Caller (125:11)

Hey, J.

Jay (125:11)

Thanks for all you do. I appreciate you.

Listener/Caller (125:14)

I was just calling about Revelations and about how it relates to the end times.

Jay (125:21)

I'm coming kind of humbly as someone that's not as knowledgeable.

Listener/Caller (125:25)

But as far as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, Revelations is not exactly one after the other in terms of how things are happening. But speaking about things that will happen and things that have happened and things that will happen in the future. And my main question is about. I've Protestant friends that talk about Babylon as if it is the United States or can be compared to nations that exist now. And as far as I understand, the

Jay (125:57)

great Babylon was Rome and it was

Listener/Caller (125:59)

them persecuting the Christians and martyring people.

Jay (126:04)

Yeah, it's Rome and Jerusalem. Right. I mean, John even says in Revelation that the city that he's talking about, that's the great harlot, is Jerusalem because it's a city where Jesus was crucified, like he explicitly says. The city that I'm talking about that I'm calling A is the one where they were crucifying Christ, which is another proof against the Judaizers because the book Revelation is the divorce, bill of divorce that was given to the Israelite nation by God because of their crucifixion of the Messiah. So this fulfills the prophecies in Hosea that I will give you a writ of divorce and other places in Jeremiah where he says he's going to divorce flesh Israel and marry his true bride, which is the church. So, yeah, the book of Revelation is pointing out that the is united to the beast. Rome is the beast. Nero is the Gematria number name for 666. And we also know that because of the variant text that has 616. And Nero Caesar matches up to both 666 and 616. Thus the book of Revelation is about things that were, quote, shortly to come to pass, as he says, the beginning of the text. Now there's also a future fulfillment. Yes, at the end of the time, whenever that is. So the book of Revelation, I believe, is a partial preterist text and also has future fulfillment relevance. Exactly what Chapters are saying what I would not venture to say because I'm not that advanced.

Listener/Caller (127:32)

Word. Okay. Well, yeah, thank you, Jay.

Jay (127:34)

That was.

Listener/Caller (127:35)

That was all.

Jay (127:35)

I appreciate it. Yeah. Check out my talks on the Beast and Revelation. We got some old podcasts on that. And then there's some good books, too. Like Days of Vengeance is a good book by David Chilton, and Ken Gentry's book Before Jerusalem Fell is a good book. My godfather just translated James Jordan's book commentary on the Book of Revelation. And there's some good orthodox texts on it as well. There's also. I mean, Hippolytus of Rome, by the way, the Pope. People forget he was a predatorist. So Saint Hippolytus very early on was pointing out that Revelation and a lot of these texts are referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, so. Which happened in 78. Eight, by the way. That. That gives a lot of power to the prophetic voice in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. And so if you. If you move away from the partial preterist view, we're actually taking away one of the strongest prophetic fulfillment texts in the New Testament, which is Jesus prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, which happened 40 years after he. He said that. So I wanted a couple of these crazy people to come back since we're at the end of the night. And one crazy dude, he ran away, and then the other communist guy, I don't think he's gonna come, even though I've invited them to come. So, guys, remember, head over to chalk.com chq.com also check out Father Deacon and Ice and Alex's stream that they did tonight. I shared that on ax. You can check that out on my wall. Check out Jamie, my wife on Jamie Kennedy. That one went up today. Check out me on Derp with Kirp, the comedian Kurt Mesker. We did an interview and it finally went up, and I think that's it. Otherwise, guys, a lot of fun tonight.

Joe Heschmeyer (129:22)

Let me.

Jay (129:23)

Oh, I think I missed some super chats. Excuse me. Josette says I'm sorry for all the background noise when I called in. Jay, thank you. Appreciate that. Lockstep says I don't want people streaming. Oh, YouTube doesn't want people streaming. Live streaming. Oh, yeah, Pop Pops. That does make sense because I was trying to figure out why you could have a channel about pistols but not a live stream. But then that's a good point, because then people would live stream their crazy stuff. Exactly. Quickly. Do you have any recommendation for Orthodox catechism? I would say get the pomazanski's book, Orthodox Dogmatics. And then I would say the little blue prayer book from the Greek Orthodox Monastery. If you type in Greek, Holy Trinity Monastery. And the little blue prayer book, that's one I've had for like 15 years. Ryan says for $3. Have you read high fantasy? Other than Tolkien, Lewis and Frank Herbert? Yeah, I've read. I mean, when I was young, I was all about fantasy. I read Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks. I read, I read some Tad Williams, which. That might be sci fi, but, yeah, a long time ago. But I mean, most fantasy stuff is like, faking gay, so I'm just not really into it. Oceanfront, what's up it.

Listener/Caller (130:51)

So I heard this was the place to find the most fabulous Spock diva.

Jay (130:56)

Yeah, well, that's definitely true.

Listener/Caller (131:00)

I'm here doing j.

Jay (131:01)

Good.

Listener/Caller (131:02)

I actually, I'm a Catholic. I'm, you know, I'm sorry, looking at Orthodoxy, but do Orthodox acts make a distinction between positive and divine law?

Jay (131:17)

I think that would be helpful in certain places in the Old Testament, like standing commands, as we say. For example, like when David is told, you know, to, to take on Saul's wives. Right. That's not like an eternal, perpetual command that we must all take on Saul's wives for all eternity. So probably there would be some types of distinctions like that. Like Aquinas talks about eternal law, which is the divine nature, and then, you know, moral law reflects that eternal law. So is that what you're talking about?

Listener/Caller (131:52)

I guess that kind of helps. I was thinking, I don't know, I'm kind of putting on my scholastic hat here, but specifically in regards to, you know, I guess, church law. So I, I, from my understanding, I know Orthodox have this as well. There's like certain canons that, you know, might have been in a council somewhere.

Jay (132:15)

Oh, you might be referring to what we call, what we call economia, which is that the bishops apply and they can bind and relax the canons based on the needs of the time. And in Orthodoxy, that's called economia. Is that we're about Talking. Talking about.

Listener/Caller (132:31)

I think so.

Jay (132:32)

Okay, that sounds.

Listener/Caller (132:34)

Yeah.

Jay (132:34)

And what was the. I don't even remember. What was the scholastic distinction that you referred to?

Listener/Caller (132:39)

So positive and divine law. Divine law would be, say, laws directly from the God.

Joe Heschmeyer (132:46)

From God.

Jay (132:46)

Right. So that would be like Aquinas talks about eternal law or things that can't change. Right.

Listener/Caller (132:51)

Yeah.

Jay (132:52)

Okay. And then, and then what was the other term?

Listener/Caller (132:54)

Positive law.

Jay (132:55)

So, and that's like human laws in

Listener/Caller (132:57)

regards to the Liturgy or something like that.

Jay (133:02)

Well, I mean, typically we wouldn't. I mean, there might be minutia about the liturgy that could be changed, but the liturgy itself would not change. For example, there's not going to be a Novus Ordo Orthodox Church.

Listener/Caller (133:24)

Okay. Okay, that's cool. I think I already answered my second question. My other question was going to be kind of stupid, so. But thank you for answering that question.

Jay (133:36)

Well, what was the second one? It's okay. I'll be nice, I promise.

Listener/Caller (133:41)

So. Well, I kind of answered my own question, so it was in regards to. Okay, if there's multiple bishops, how do we. Who settles things? But, you know, I could easily say the Pope.

Jay (133:54)

The Pope settles things. That's the only way to do it is to have a Pope. The Pope. Only the Pope settles things. There's no other way to settle anything. I appreciate your question. I'm being silly. Third 30 century man. What's up? Or he dropped off. Where'd he go? I was really hoping this communist dude and this other crazy dude would come in here, but they're not going to come. Did you want to say something else? If you're asking who's who decides in the Orthodox Church, I mean, we got a whole bunch of podcasts on that. You could. I just don't have the energy to rehearse that whole line of argument again. Go ahead. Did you want to say that again? I thought you were done. I didn't mean to. I wasn't booting you. Go ahead. You know what I think sometimes when I remove people, it doesn't let me try it that way. Can you. Can you speak now? Says there's an error adding you. I don't know. Sometimes this happens. I'm not sure why I didn't ban you. Are you there? I don't know. It's not working. Maybe if you come out and come back in. All right, we got some more super chats. Let's see, Chico sends a dollar. Let's see. Burner sink, $10. Jay, I'm wondering if I can ask for my parents prayers. If the prayers will accomplish anything. If they're in a heretical section, can they still be righteous and have their prayers answered? I've never even been asked that. That's a good question. Can we ask heretic to pray for us? I mean, your parents might not be like formal heretics, to use the Catholic terminology. They might be material heretics. I don't actually know how to answer that. I would ask a Orthodox priest. Could we ask heterodox parents to pray for.

Listener/Caller (136:13)

Pray for us.

Jay (136:20)

I don't know. I'm like, really? I'm going back and forth on that one. I've never been asked that. I never even thought about it. I don't know. By the way, I'm okay. I'm happy saying when I don't know. I don't know. Ask someone older and wiser in the Orthodox Church than me. Cole Mech ethos, $10. I believe you said to read Leontius of Jerusalem over Leontis Byzantium. That is correct. Because I think Leontis Byzantium was pretty originistic. Do you real recommend still reading him? Well, he's important for the development of the christological debate, but he's not a good source for the christological stuff. But Leontius's teaching is accepted by the Fifth Council, so. So he's just relevant for the development of things like in hypostatize. But he's. He's not the guy that the Fifth Council went with. Father hears has addressed questions like this. Okay, well, yeah, you could see what he says. I don't know. Charles. $20. Thank you for your apologetics, joining the church. Appreciate that. Glad to hear you're here. Many years to you, Ryan Finley. We have no king but Caesar. Y' all talking about that no kings protests? Ryan, over here doing a no Kings protest. No Kangs protest. How are we gonna have no kings when we was kings, by the way? Let's see. Prompt. The prompt says for $5. Evidence of big Z influence in Rome or. Or Orthodoxy. I mean, not at a, like, theological level, but perhaps at places like Fordham or perhaps at an individual level or something like that. Individual people. But not at, like, a systemic level for Orthodoxy, but in the Roman Church. Yes. I think you can find quite a bit of that. And I've covered it and talked about it many, many times. So many times that I'm tired of talking about it. Logan, $5. We did that one earlier. All right, guys. Appreciate it. Oh, here's some more men's issues. My boomer uncle is unstable. He's programmed by Social Darwinism. I hate Boomers. Well, you know, it's unfortunate with boomers that are, you know, NPCs and kind of indoctrinated. I just got to pray for him and love them. Jonas, $5. How big of a donor do I need to be to get a badge of chalk? A batch of chalk shipped to Denmark? I think they will ship it wherever, but use promo code J60LIFE. But I don't think it's A problem to get it shipped out of country. So, again, y' all asked me some questions. I never thought about a Ethel Merz. $10. The Final Boss of Protestant apologetics is Tutor Alexander. Never heard of him. The Dance of Life podcast. He was Orthodox, but not anymore. He was Orthodox longer than you. Oh, like, what does that have to do with. Has nothing to do with whether the arguments are true or false. I mean, you could be Orthodox your whole life and apostatized, like, and then you die. Like, does that mean. Oh, well, I guess Orthodoxy wasn't true because he was Orthodox is all, like, irrelevant. 14 reasons why Catholicism Orthodoxy have nothing to do with the church. Oh, sounds super intimidating. Ron John, $5. Thank you. Help me my wife become Orthodox. Appreciate that. Rylan says for $5. I had a debate with my co workers. Baptists and Eleutheran and Catholics. We were talking about salvation. Not gonna brag, but I did cook them, and that's because I listened to hours of Jay's debates. Well, that's good, I guess. Hopefully they'll become orthodox. Sean Patterson says, no, we did that. Andrew says for $2. Do you think Muslim debates drove Sam Shamoon insane? I don't know, Pepper. Profit. $20. What? Yeah, he's quoting Little John over here. Sincere hypocrite. $5. Remember that Sam Shamoon blasphemed God's energies and said the author, Arthur Bros, should be cut off from God's grace. Yeah. Tipper, $5. Do you have a bird's idea? Trying to pop my jaw. Been yapping too much. Do you have a bird's eye view of what is going on with the rise of orthodoxy? I mean, people are seeing that Protestantism is weak and they're converting, and the Internet is a big part of that. How does it relate to the cratering of Protestant evangelicalism? Because they're faking gay and people are seeing that and they have a structural problem. They don't have an answer. Where does Catholicism fit in? It's basically going Protestant. Cool. Barracuda. No, we did that. Keenan Beats says, thank you for your work and all the entertainment. Thank you. Von Da says for $3. Try not to pay to win. But I'm wondering if I'm still in the queue for the call ins. I guess not. I've been spurging to ask my questions. Sorry, dude. Call back in next time, man. Ray says, jay, you have a very plump booty. Oh, we got. We found a voice of reason. Sock account. J, you have a very blunt booty. Irrationally irritable. $10. Did you comment on the weird story about Cardinal Christophe Pierre? I don't know who that is. And the Pentagon something called Avignon Papacy. I mean I know about the Avignon Papacy but I don't know who Cardinal Christoph is or what has to do with of the Pentagon. The admin was trying to browbeat Roman Catholics because of Pope Leo's comments on Trump. I don't know anything about that but. Oh, are you saying the Trump administration used a avenue on papacy argument against a cardinal? They're just getting crazy out here. If so, I want to see that. Dude, somebody send that. That sounds like crazy. Let's see if we could find that cardinal, what was his name? Christoph Pierre. Threatened. Pentagon threatens the Pope after criticism of Trump. What the heck is going on? This is crazy dude. These news sites are absolutely just unusable. There's so many pop ups and ads on these stupid ass news sites. They're the worst. You can't even go to them, dude. President Trump end the war. Hopefully he's looking for an off ramp. Hopefully he's looking for a way to to decrease the amount of violence of bombing which would be a significant contribution to removing the hatred that's being created and that's increasing constantly in the Middle east and elsewhere. So I would certainly continue to give this call to all leaders of the world to say come back to the table to dialogue. Let's look for solutions of problems. Let's look for ways to to reduce that has nothingness there. Nothing about a threat. Cardinal Kristoff was summoned to a tense closed door meeting at the Pentagon. How did. I didn't even know this. Okay. In the 20th of January. Okay, that's weird. Where the US made gave a bitter lecture and made threats about the Vatican stance on foreign policy. See that they told him that the US can do whatever it wants and the the Cali Church better take its side. The meeting was convened following a State of the World address by Pope Leo critical of the imperialist occupation of the US in the Middle East. This was a intimidation tactic. The officials referred to the 14th century Avignon Papacy when the French monarchy controlled the papacy to underscore their demands. Well, I mean we've been arguing for a good while that the power structure in the West, AKA the deep state, absolutely controls the Vatican. So now I see why this comment came in, why this is relevant. Vatican reaction. The Vatican was reportedly alarmed by the treatment of the cardinal. Pope Leo planned then to visit Pentagon response Pentagon confirmed the meeting took place but said that the reports of the incident were exaggerated. Interesting. Well, yeah. The Vatican is a occupied globalist power structure. And so, like, nothing about this surprises me. Accounts payable $5. Have you seen Mad Men? I've seen the first season, and we've talked about. Ironically, I've seen the end of the show. So we've talked about how Don Draper ends up at the Esalen Institute meditating, because it's a transition out of that period into the 60s countercultural revolution. So I'm familiar with those aspects, but I also think you're probably interested in the idea of psychological warfare and persuasion and these different types of techniques, how they overlap with the advertising world. And yes, I think. Wasn't Don Draper, like, in the OSS or something? So you should do a video reviewing it and the advertising world. Yeah, if I get around to ever finishing the. The show. Ty Nakano. What's up, dude? You're the last guy. CR Craftsman says the trees are. Are. Are humping your lungs, dude. Yeah, it's because of the pollen. Get this man a Claritin. I don't like Claritin. I've heard it goes through the blood brain barrier. What's up, man? I'm mute. Ty, you want to talk or not? All right, that was your chance. Is that all of them? Let's see. None of your business. Says for $5, who is the number one person that you would never debate again by your choice and why? I mean, we had some. We had quite a few stinkers that were just horrible to deal with. Just nasty, just terrible people. I would probably. I would never debate T. Dump Haas, the crazy communist, mainly just because it's people that are, like, you know, obsessive and weird and not. Not people that you can have a rational discussion. So I can't. I can't really think of. Those are the ones that pop into my head. I probably wouldn't debate. Not so erudite again. Just because it's like, you can only get so far with people that are kind of fundamentally just not that smart. So it's very frustrating to have a debate with people that are dunning Kruger. You know, people that way overestimate their capabilities and their intelligence and that are extremely arrogant. So. T Jenks, $20. What's your opinion on a person saying that they will not debate another person because they're terrible? They won't be on the same stage as them, for example, if they may. If they can be made to look foolish, then why would you not do it? Well, it depends on the. On the people in the situation. I mean, some people are irrational and unstable, and you might not want to be around them because you don't want to bring your wife or your kids or your family to some situation with, like, insane Communists, right? Like Haas and his goons. Like, these people are not. These people are demonically energized, Right? That's what we would say about Bolsheviks. So these people love Bolshevism. They try to, you know. And you have to understand, too, like, for those kind of people, for Communists, for a hardcore Marxist, they don't believe debate is about discovering the truth. It's an action of negation for them. So it's an actual performance to tear down and destroy. And it's not at all about discovering the truth. So.