Transcription
I was invited to come on here and debate, but I don't really know. You're Eastern Orthodox, right?
Sure.
Okay. Well, I guess maybe a question is why do you reject uh solos scriptura?
Uh it's not a biblical doctrine. Um it's there's no completed cannon for several centuries up into the sixth and seventh century. Uh therefore, the church was not operating on the basis of it. Um the Protestant has no direct uh access to what the correct canon. the Protestant has a false cannon and so those those themselves are enough to show that it's not true.
Okay. Uh do you think that uh reading of scripture is a sufficient condition for someone to be aware that they're reading the word of God? Is reading scripture a sufficient condition to be aware that they're reading scripture?
That's right.
Uh I don't understand the formulation of that question. It's it seems convoluted. Are you asking does an individual uh have the enlightenment of Holy Spirit when he reads scripture?
Yes. Well, what I'm asking is is it possible to recognize scripture uh upon reading it?
With the light of the Holy Spirit? Yes.
Okay. So, you think that the you would you would you use the word illumination?
Sure.
Okay. So, when you're talking about enlightenment, uh, a Protestant concept of illumination is sort of like a family concept. You'd say,
Uh, a family concept? What do you mean?
Oh, they're analogous. They're they're similar, if not identical ideas of what the spirit is doing.
Oh, you mean between enlightenment and illumination?
That's right.
Yeah. I think they intend them the same thing. However, uh because you don't have a doctrine of the energies, you don't actually know or perceive or participate in knowing God himself. Uh your doctrine precludes that.
Okay. Uh maybe you can maybe you don't think that's important, but if you do, could you unpack that a little bit? Like what what you think?
Right. So, um even though you correctly confess that yes, the Holy Spirit enlightens us to understand the scriptures, there's no mechanics. There's no possibility within the Calvinist theology for how that's possible or occurs given your doctrine of divine simplicity and created grace that actually negates the thing. So I'm not saying you that you guys are wrong in in confessing that we have the uh interior sort of um individual experience of the Holy Spirit. You do confess that correctly. But I'm saying that your heterodox trinitarian theology actually precludes that from being possible.
Okay. How would you go about uh discuss? Well, I'll go back really quick just to clarify something. Well, I do not think that illumination or what what you're referring to as enlightenment um is a necessary condition of recognizing scripture. an unbeliever can approach the text and be immediately aware that he's reading the words of God. So I don't think that it requires um illumination from the Holy Spirit. I think that the purpose of elimination is not to uh justify a person's belief or cause a justified belief that they're reading God's word, but rather the purpose of illumination is to um cause the person to acknowledge their belief that they it causes them to acknowledge the scripture to submit to it and so to have its uh power like a transformed mind uninhibited by an unregenerate heart. That's the purpose of
Yeah. So, um who is doing this action?
God.
Yeah. I would say this this this spirit is enacting this this uh reality.
Do you agree with all of the reformed theologians that God is absolutely simple?
It depends on what you mean by simple. I don't think there's one.
Well, I mean, they they all pretty much say the same thing. I mean, they follow uh the Augustinian view of simplicity.
I I disagree. So, I think there's a there's a scholastic approach to simplicity. Um there might be a mysterian approach to simplicity. I I take a sort of personalist concept of simplicity that's someone might argue is more modern, but seems to me that there's room to to disagree even within reform circles about what simplicity is. But I would I will concede that I do hold the view of simplicity.
Okay. But you don't have a doctrine of the energies. Correct.
That's right.
Yeah. So you believe in divine simplicity in the way that most reformed people would believe in it.
I don't know that I would say that. I think that when uh I think that the more popular view among reformers is a toistic conception of simplicity. And I would reject
well that's even worse. That's the same as the Augustinian view. So yes, that's what I initially said. I just want to make sure I understood you. You're
there's no difference between Augustine's doctrine of simplicity and Aquinus is Aquinus restates Augustine and I'm not aware of any uh major reformed theologians who differ from them on simplicity.
Easy example is uh uh frame uh Wayne Grudum.
Okay. But you just said you agreed with that view. I'm not interested in what Wayne Grudam and John I've read Gruden and John Frame. I don't care what they say. And by the way,
that's why I want to make sure I understood.
Hey, look, what is your doctrine? I don't care about theirs.
Yeah. Yeah, that's right. That's what I'm trying to get to. Yeah. Yeah. So, I think there was a misunderstanding. What I said was I reject the terministic position. Not that
Okay. My That's fine. That's fine. My position would be that um I think God um is not composed of parts. Neither is he participating in extraneous varities about about properties or or things like abstract objects.
Okay.
I'm more worried about redemption. That's really what matters. Like so when Jesus says in John 17 that he came to give us a share in the glory that he sh he had with the father before the foundation of the world. Do you believe that we really participate in that glory?
Uh so it depends on how you interpret
well I'm asking you how you interpret the text. I mean I know that the people in the reformed tradition debate stuff. I'm here I'm asking you.
My take is that Jesus uh like like it reads John I think it's five or six for example that when Jesus talks about bringing the realities of the father uh to human beings and having them participate in it. It's not talking about God's essence.
So what is it?
Uh it's talking about um so for example I think life is the easiest concept to understand when it talks about Jesus providing the life that the father originally has. It's talking about the design of God for humans that they are to live with him or live in his presence and so from him uh experience [snorts] the eternal blessedness of his lifegiving presence.
Okay. So it's eternal life, right?
Sure. Yeah.
Okay. So eternal life, immortality, glory were we are said to partake of all these things in the New Testament, right?
Sure. Yeah.
Okay. Are those things created or not?
They are created.
Do you think the glory of God that Jesus shares with the father before the foundation of the world is created? That's Aryan. Well, I think the the life that the father has that he gives to the son to share with us is uncreated.
You just contradict. You said it's created and then you said it's uncreated.
Uh I didn't say uncreated. What I said was that what the what life the father has to give to the son which the son imparts to us
is created.
Okay. The life that the father has with the son is not created. That's Aryan.
I
Jesus's divine life is not a creation.
Well, I
This is why you're heterodox.
Yeah. I I wouldn't agree with the interpretation that uh the father is giving us his divine essence. That would be
Yeah, nobody believes that we're getting divine essence. That's why there's an essence energy distinction which Paul teaches.
Yeah. But then that makes your argument trivial. If you're going to say that there's a distinction between
No, we're the only church that believes in the essence energy distinction. You don't. And all the the Latin tradition affirms absolute divine simplicity. So you're in the dilemma of all of the West. And this is why the West is wrong because you don't have a doctrine by which we actually participate in the uncreated life, the uncreated glory, the uncreated grace of God. Yeah. Again, if you mean that we participate in the uncreated glory of God, i.e. his essence,
the glory of God is not his essence. This is the doctrine of the essence energy distinction.
Let me finish my point. If you think that human beings participate in the glory of God, i.e. the essence, then you're not.
Nobody thinks that. So why why are you even bringing that up? Can I can I finish my argument?
Okay. So, if if you think that that's what that verse is talking about, that it's uncreated, therefore God's essence, because that's the only thing that is uncreated,
that's not true.
Is is Jesus is Jesus uncreated?
Uh do you mean Jesus the the human
second person of the Godhead? Jesus the logos. Is he uncreated?
Well, strictly speaking, uh when you say Jesus is
the logos, the second person of the Godhead is a divine person. He's not created. He's not identical to the divine essence. So, you don't believe that only the divine essence is uncreated. There are other things or um proofs or propositions or realities in God that are not identical to the divine essence that are uncreated like the hypothacases. The hypothesis just are a god. So I don't
they are not identical to the divine essence. That's called seellionism or modalism.
I I disagree.
No, that's basic that's how Unomius defines what his position is is that he identifies the name father with the divine essence. So fundamental to all trinitarian theology is the distinction between nature and person. You just collapse them. No, I I didn't say that there's no distinction between age and person, but part of this
you just said that Jesus is the divine essence. No,
I said that that Jesus is God. The hypothesis just are God.
That's collapsing them into the divine essence. They are not identical to the essence of God.
Okay. We we can return to this in just a second, but I just want to finish the argument that I was making a second ago. Didn't get to finish it. So if you want to say that uh human beings participate in the uncreated glory i.e. divinity.
Yeah.
Hold on. Then the our interpretation is not going to fair any better than an Aryan because then we're just saying human beings participate in God which is impossible.
That's not impossible. That's what salvation is. That's why that's why Jesus gives us immortality, eternal life, uncreated grace. If on the other hand you want to make a distinction between participating in who God is or godness, divinity, however you wish to put it, deity versus some energy that is distinct from who God is, then that fares uh to my reading as well. That's I I'm perfectly capable of picking up the same distinction. I just don't accept that.
No, you're not. Actually, that's not it's a disingenuous reading. I'm not saying you're intentionally being disingenuous, but that is not your tradition and that is not consistent with the rest of the triology. You can't have that. You can't just say, "Well, I accept the energies doctrine hypothetically and then turn around and collapse person into nature." So, you have to have the whole of the rest of the triology of orthodoxy.
You're asserting that I'm collapsing person. But that was
You just did. You said that the person just is God.
Is Jesus God?
Yes. Okay then.
Yeah. So there's no distinction between the is of predication and the is of identity.
Identity is a predication. What are you talking about?
This is a basic philosophical distinction. Not every is is identical. There's the is of predication and the is of identity. Jesus or the logos the father. They are not identical to the divine essence or else you're a modalist.
You don't know basic trinitary theology. This is basic.
You can assert that. But I again I didn't say
you did you just said you just said that the father is identical to the divine essence.
I I never used the term identical in this conversation.
You said just is God.
I that is true.
Okay. Is God the divine essence?
It depends on what you mean by the word God. You can define the word.
I'm asking you what you mean. What? When I say Jesus is God,
let's talk about the father, okay? Because you're going to start talking about the incarnation. Let's talk about the person or the father.
Is is person and nature and the godhead identical or are they really distinct?
There is a unity of God which we call the nature,
right?
I'm not sure most
we agree with that.
Okay. This nature is shared by all three persons. We agree with that. Correct.
All right. In so far as uh the father possesses things in himself, those are things that are private to God. They belong to God as God.
I don't know what you mean by private, but
I mean,
yeah. What I mean is you cannot you cannot possess those things unless you are the father. Are you talking about hypothetic properties that the father is the cause, the father is the arch, the father is the source, those are called hypoic properties. What what I'm saying is if you're talking about God, whether the father, the first person of the trinity, or the unity of God, the Godhead, okay? You're talking about perfections that are only possessed by God. Either because they are the one perfections shared by the three persons or because the distinct perfections of the father. Neither one.
Yeah. That you're using the wrong terms. It's not perfections because that wouldn't distinguish the persons. It's called hypothetic properties. There's not a perfection that the father has that the son and the spirit lack. There's a hypothetic property the father has that the son and the spirit lack. But perfection, if you're going to attribute that to the essence, that has to be common to all three.
Perfection and property are synonymous. They're just uh placeholders for whatever you take to be uh characteristics that define the thing. Regardless.
Okay. So, God's is God's perfection identical to the action of creating the world?
Is God is God's perfection identical to his action of creating the world?
Yeah, obviously they're different. So, perfection is not identical to all the traits.
Okay. But I'm not sure what that has to do with what was just said.
I mean, you just said that perfection describes all of the different attributes, right?
No. No. You made an assertion that the term perfection has a set universal meaning. That is false. You can define the word perfection however you want. And different uh theologians have used property, attributes, perfections. They're all synonymous. You can use
No, they're not. No, they're not. They're not synonymous.
Let me ask you to be clear here. What are you saying is synonymous? That the word perfection is synonymous with attributes? I'm confused here.
Or properties. Yes.
Okay. Do you think all of God's attributes are identical? Is that what you're saying?
No. Notice notice how you you moved to the word attribute as if it made no difference than property.
Again, I'm trying to get you to tell me. I mean, I know what our view is. I know what the church fathers teach. I'm trying to get you to tell me what your view is because I'm confused. I don't know what you're talking about. Well, you the problem is you switch between asking me what my view is versus pretending to tell me what a given word means. And that's not how language works.
Well, langu the language of trinitarian theology is married to the Capidosians and to the first seven centuries. So, I'm going to be working from the correct fima or mindset. I'm trying to translate this into your heterodox trinitarian theology. So, that's why I'm trying to figure it out. I'm not trying to trick you. trying to figure out what you mean by these words.
Okay. Well, then it's useful not to tell me what they mean rather than asking me what I mean by that.
Well, I'm telling you what they mean in the orthodox sense because that's where the trinity comes from, right? So, do you believe the creed?
I don't believe that for a second, but regardless.
Well, hold on. Hold on. You don't believe that for a second? Do you believe the the nino constant creed?
Do I believe the nyine creed? Is that what you're saying? The Nyino Constantinopolitan Creed. Do you believe that creed?
You're talking about the Nyine Creed. I I
It's called the Nino Constantinopolitan Creed. It's modified at Constantinople 381.
Not even familiar with that.
Okay. This is basic to Trinitarian theology. So you claim to not believe this. You don't even know something basic. This anybody who knows the trinity would know this. So you don't know what you're talking about. And you just told me you just told me I don't believe that for a second. So you have zero knowledge of what would be fun fundamental to all trinitarian theology.
Again you you can assert your view.
You just said that
where do you think the trinity doctrine comes from?
Let's let's stay with one topic.
Where do you think the trinity doctrine comes from? So you just showed your ignorance of the most important trinitarian uh council in the history of the church.
10 seconds ago. You were trying You were saying you were trying to understand.
You don't understand the the most important trinitarian council in the history of the church. You didn't know what it was.
You have not established.
Did you not know what it did? You say you don't know what it is.
You have not established that it's important in the slightest.
And furthermore,
anyone who studies the Trinity will tell you that this is important. This is a basic and this is what you guys are ignorant of. This is why you're heterodox. You're not even aware of the most important trinitarian council in the history of the church.
I understand you believe that.
No. And that is a fact. It is easily demonstrable. It's a fact.
Mere assertions. They don't interest me at all. What will interest
They're not mere assertions. You You just showed that you don't know what you're talking about. You're an idiot.
Okay. That's
You just demonstrated your lack of knowledge and your idiocy and your hard-headedness.
It's not a It's not a mere assertion. You have no knowledge of the topic. That's That's nice. That's nice.
No, it's not a mere assertion. Do Do you not understand this? Why do you think that that's a mere assertion?
Moving back to
No, I'm not going to go back to this because this shows you don't know what you're talking about.
You can keep So, let me get this straight. Your defense
No, this is just one important point in the history of triology that you're completely ignorant of, which is the most important point, by the way. Your defense of the Eastern Orthodox view is to assert and not defend.
No, I'm glad to. I'm here to defend it. You have not given me anything coherent. I can't figure out your position. You keep talking in circles.
Okay. So, you do wish to go back and investigate what
we can if you want to, but you've just shown that you don't know the most important history about the council of Constantinople one, right? And all of Trinitarian theology. You don't even know that that's where it comes from. Sure.
No, don't just give me that sn that s that snide. Sure. Because you just showed yourself full of
You don't know what you're talking about.
I mean, you're laughing about this. You're laughing about this. You didn't know what concept noble one was. You didn't know what the nice concept creed was. And yet, you claim to believe this creed. Now, here's what I'm going to make. Here's what I'm going to show that you're an idiot is that all of those fathers in that council that wrote that creed and gave it the dogmatic formation that it has and the sense that it has, they say what I'm saying to you and you don't even know that.
But it doesn't interest me because that's not how
but it should interest you because you think that you're doing trinitarian theology and you're not. You're you're ignorant. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
You don't even know that you're ignorant.
That remains to be demonstrated.
Okay. That's a fact of church history that's not disputed though. So you can keep saying and that remains to be shown but it's a fact and it's not hard to go find that out dude.
Oh dear.
Dre, come come now.
Dude, don't talk to me like this. You don't know what you're talking about. You've just shown your ignorance and everybody in here who knows the basics of Christologology and transparent theology knows this now. So we can go back to scripture now that that's been shown.
You keep asserting that. But yeah,
no, it's a fact. It's not an assertion. Do you know the difference between just asserting something and it being a known historic fact that all scholars in these traditions will tell you?
Listen,
do you know a single scholar who doubts this? Name one scholar who doubts what I said.
I I told you I'm not familiar.
No, you don't know. So, thank you for admitting that you don't know this.
I I'm not familiar with the topics, but it doesn't interest me because I'm I'm not
It should interest you because this is how you come to know the trinitarian theology. You can't divorce it from the church. This is why you're heterodox.
You're not in the church. You can't do transparent theology outside the church.
This conversation
is not going to be
this conversation is over.
I'm just joking.
Okay. You you have to let the other person speak and try to understand what they're saying. You can't just keep interrupting and hope
I've asked you multiple times though to explain the trinity and you're not doing it. You're just giving me these. You're talking around it. What is your view? Is it difficult to be polite as an Eastern Orthodox?
I've asked you multiple times to explain the view. Just do it.
Sometimes it is, but that's not uh something just peculiar to Eastern Orthodox. [laughter]
This is a diversion because he's not Yeah. Can you explain your position, please? How do you distinguish the person?
Well, we have to we have to decide if we're going to agree. Am I going to be able to speak without being interrupted?
Okay. Look, are you gonna I'm asking you to do it and don't go back to uh are you gonna let me speak. Just give your freaking position.
All right. I've taken that as a yes. Yeah. So, like I was saying before, I don't I don't care if we want to use the word properties or attributes or perfections. It doesn't matter. The point is that whether you're talking about the father who is a hypostasis of God
or whether you're talking about God the attributes that are shared by the trinity shared by the triune members either way you are talking about who God is in general and therefore something that is not accessible to human beings whether you're talking about the father's property properties or God's properties both are equally uncreated and therefore
inaccessible to creation.
What do you mean inaccessible? That they don't participate.
Correct.
Okay. You are an Aryan. Thank you. Because the Aryans argued that all we got in creation in salvation was another created status and another creature.
I I don't believe that that was the Aryan.
That is what they teach. And again, you show your ignorance. You've not read the debates between Athanasius and the Aryans. This is the argument he makes against them.
Well,
I know you're going to laugh with that snide, condescending laugh, but it's again just a demonstration of ignorance.
Well, well, what I'm trying to do is be charitable, right? Maybe you think that what I said there is heretical. And my point is, it doesn't matter whether you know Aryan said X, Y, or Z. If it is heretical, you should be able to provide an argument here and now against his
I will give it to you. In the in the New Testament, Jesus came to bring us the glory that he shared with the father before the foundation of the world. He makes it very clear in John 17 that that's what he's going to give us. You said that that cannot be communicated to creatures. Therefore, you don't believe in the fundamental salvation that is uncreated grace that we're given. We are made immortal. We are made to partake of the divine nature. Peter says we are made to be eternal. We are given immortal life. We participate in the divine light. All of those things are uncreated. Only the Orthodox Church holds to uncreated energies.
Right? So my retort is just that again in so far as as we're talking about God's uncreated properties to say that a creature has those is just to say that the creature becomes God.
No, it doesn't. It becomes God in a different sense. It becomes God by grace and by participation, not the divine essence. So when Moses goes up on the mountain, he says, "Let me see your face." God says, "I will not show you my face because you will die. However, I will show you my goodness." So there's a distinction between what Moses sees and the inner hidden essence of God. When Jesus is appearing on Mount Taber, they see the light. That unccreated light is the same light that Paul says in 1 Timothy 6 is the uncreated light that dwells that God that dwells in unapproachable light and glory. The glory of God that Jesus shares is a which is a common attribute with the father is not created. Therefore, what are we sharing in? Well, everybody agrees that we're not sharing in the essence of God because that would make us new hypoases in the trinity. That's impossible. However, the New Testament is adamantly clear. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 that the inner gaya, the works of the spirit truly are the power and work of the spirit. The power and work of the spirit of Christ, right, of all of his redemption is not just another creature. It's unccreated. This is the gospel and you don't believe that. So my question would be do you think that the glory of God as you're speaking of it uncreated is that a property of the Godhead in general or is that a property of the father?
It is shared amongst all three because Jesus says the glory that he had with the father before the foundation of the world. So it's common to all three. It's an energy that all three share. I don't I don't know what you mean by energy.
Again, this is the essence energy distinction. The word energy is used multiple times in the Greek by Paul to describe the work and power of God.
Okay?
Grace for us is uncreated energy. It's the eternal life, the immortality, the light, the love, the glory. All of those attributes that we partake of are not creatures. That's the Aryan view.
Okay. Is God's glory a property of God.
It's an uncreated energy.
Okay. But that's not So, is it not a property?
Yeah, but that's the biblical terminology. So, I'm not going to be using your unbiblical terminology.
Um, I hate to tell you, but the Bible was written in Greek, so energy is not biblical. I mean, if you want to use that kind of
uh uh uh you just again showed your ignorance. Energya is used multiple times in the Septuagent and the New Testament for God's works and attributes and powers. So you just again showed basic ignorance.
Yes, energeta may be the pronunciation of the Greek word. You said energy which is an English word.
Dude, seriously, are you that low you? I'm I'm having a hard time not being mean to you because the energy energy is the English word for inner gaya. Okay, that's the Greek word. It's the same word. I didn't know.
I mean, dude, this is getting embarrassing for you. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but you're trying to come off smart and knowing what you're talking about and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's used multiple times in the Septuagia and the New Testament. And it's inner gaya. That's plural for energies.
Yeah. So, what you said was that you refuse to use language that is not
I'm not going to use properties from analytical philosophy. Okay. I'm going to use the biblical terminology and the way that the church fathers speak about it, which is energies because that's what Paul says.
Well, I'm
Yeah, you're doing this condescending laugh again, but you didn't even know that that's in the New Testament. Common. That's common in the New Testament.
So, you keep doing this condescending laugh and you're just showing your ignorance.
I never said that the concept of energy is in is not in the New Testament.
Neither did I. Neither did I say
properties in terms of some
you just said the energies is not in the Bible. Okay. You just said that.
Hold on. I joined.
Dude, you're a sophist. You're a sophist. This is This is embarrassing. You just told me that energies is not something in the Bible.
Yes. The English term energies is not in the original Greek test. Correct.
Dude, are you that dumb? I'm sorry, but are you is this just sophistry for you? I just told you inner GA in the Greek in 1 Corinthians 12.
This is really this is put this is testing my patience. I mean
do you not understand what I'm saying? This is a simple argument.
I was trying to refrain from all the insults, you know, flight.
I'm sorry that was quiet. What did you say? I I wish I could turn up whoever was just speaking, but I I don't know where you are in the chat.
Oh yeah. I was just saying it would be good for people just to be respectful. You know, you're we're all
That's why I'm laughing because it's like it's so awkward.
No, you're you're laughing because it's this condescending laugh like you're so beyond the sub and you know what you're and you you've shown multiple times that you have no clue what you're talking about. Jay, I'm laughing because you're being so combative and there's no it's it's it's reasonless. I mean, I don't know why you're you're getting so
because of the sophistry that you're engaging in. That's what really irks me when you do the sophistry. If you would stop with the sophistry, it wouldn't irk me.
All right. Well, I don't I don't agree that I've engaged in sophistry, but let me let me make a let me go back and return.
I mean, did you not say that energies is not in the Bible? And you know, unless you're unless you're that like confused that I'm talking about the Greek term in GAA that Paul uses that and energies is just the English word for that.
You missed my point. My point was you said that you were not going to use and I will be charitable. Your motivation I I think what you meant to say
let's not debate the motives, dude. Just make your argument. We're not here to debate motives. I'm not. What is your argument?
I would love to, Jay. I would love to make my argument.
You have to not interrupt me.
Okay. I I appreciate you. I'm trying to have a response.
Make your argument. If you say one more time, stop interrupting me when I'm quiet waiting for you to make the argument, I'm just gone because this is a conversation.
Make your argument. I don't know what to say. That's Yeah. So, what I was saying is you want to avoid and this is my charitable interpretation. You want to avoid analytic categories and I am right there with you in rejecting the let's let's borrow your term sophistry of analytic thought. I completely agree their their conception of properties is going to lead us far astray from the way scripture speaks of that. But I didn't I wasn't using I wasn't borrowing analytic conception when I used the word property. And and I was trying to be clear about that when I said look I don't think there's a fundamental difference between the way we use the word perfection attribute property. We are merely describing God. That's all those word those words are just used to say a true description of God. That's it. Okay. Now we may be describing different things about God. maybe describing how he interacts with creation versus how he is sans's creation or prior to creation, however you want to put it. Okay. But I I agree with you. I think you're right to reject the analytic categories.
Okay. What does this have to do with uh the essence distinction? That's the whole point of the argument I'm making. I don't care about what terms you want to use in terms of analytic philosophy. Just what are what are you how are you going to say that we participate in God?
Okay. It has to do with a conversation because you it sounds like you want to reject the the concepts that come from analytic philosophy but not necessarily the language.
Dude, why are you bringing this back to analytic philosophy? Has nothing to do with the arguments I'm making.
Goodness.
I want to make arguments about trinitarian theology from the Bible and the way that it's explicated in the councils. You don't have any knowledge of that, especially with the councils. So, I don't care about these terms that you're using. I'm trying to get to the point about uncreated life, grace, and salvation. I don't care about the analytic terms. Go back to how are we saved. That's what matters.
Well, it h it has to do with how we're saved. Right? So, the issue is if you think the glory of God
is a characteristic, a property, the perfection, whatever you want to say, if it's a truth about
it's an energy. It's an energy.
Okay. What is an energy? Why do you keep doing the stupid laugh, dude? That is That's what's irksome. It's the condescending Sargon laugh.
I'm not being condescending. It's awkward when you interrupt. [clears throat]
Come on, dude. Just talk like a normal person.
It's It's awkward when you keep interrupting me.
Okay. Because you do this condescending tactic of doing this laugh that's really annoying.
And you can't just explain your position. I don't need the explanation of analytic philosophy. Just tell me what the position is on the Trinity. How are we saved? What is uncreated grace?
Yeah, I was in the middle of that. So again,
come on, spit it out.
If do you think the glory of the father is a characteristic of God shared by the triune membersh
then to say that a human being can possess that is just to say that a human being can possess deity.
Correct. In what sense? In the sense of energy, not in the sense of essence. So you have a problem with Jesus saying that he came to give us that glory. It's the same glory that he possessed with the father before the foundation of the world.
I have a problem.
Yes.
And that's because you're a Calvinist. You have a problem with what Jesus says.
Well, can I if I can finish my rhetoric? I don't have a problem with the text. I have a problem with the interpretation that the father is granting us attributes of God. That is impossible. That just means God is granting.
That's because you don't believe the gospel. Because Jesus said he came to give us eternal life. God alone dwells in immortality and eternal light. So you don't believe the gospel. You're an unbeliever.
Well, the So I would just wonder
your explication of grace is Aryan. Well, I would just wonder h why we need salvation if we are God.
We are not God. We are made to participate in God's energies, his life, his immortality. That's not the divine essence.
When we analyzed and here I'm inviting you to make a distinction. When we analyzed what we were talking about when we were talking about the glory of God, we see that that is an attribute of God just like uncreatedness just like
no you don't understand what the essence energy distinction is. So you're confusing an incommunicable attribute or property of God or namely the essence of God with the energies. So we are not saying that you participate in God's essence. Nobody does. This is why we believe in the essence energy distinction on the basis of revealed theology because the Bible all throughout teaches the uncreated energies.
Hey, I'm sorry to interrupt you guys. Um, I just want to thank all of you. I'm going to head to bed now and um, forgive me the center if I've offended anybody and uh, I really enjoyed all of your questions and thank you for having me on your server and uh, God bless all of you and your service and truth. God bless you.
God bless you.
So for example, when the angel of the Lord appears in the Old Testament, those are theophones. It's the energetic personal presence of the Logos. He's worshiped when he appears. Therefore, there can really be appearances of God within time and space. But how is that possible if God's an absolutely simple essence, right? The answer the Bible gives is the distinction between God revealed aka energies and God unrevealed or hidden aka essence. So that's our basic template for how we participate in God but don't become the divine essence. But we really are made gods. Jesus said, "I have come that you might have eternal life." He says, "I I have said you are all gods." Peter says we become partakers of the divine nature. you throughout this whole discourse have have tried to say we do not become partakers of the divine nature.
I raise the brow just at the language. Yes, of course we cannot.
Why do you have a problem with scriptures language?
Because to participate in the divine nature is just to be God. That's what we mean.
No, it's not. No, it isn't. Because there's a distinction between how we do that and what God is. We do that by participating in his energies. Those are fully divine. They're really God. They make us deified. They make us immortal and eternal. Think about Jesus's flesh. When he's resurrected and he's walking around, he's no longer subject to the passions. He's no longer subject to corruption. He is impassible. And that flesh is changed to be in a sense able to do things that he will not to do before the resurrection. So he can walk through walls, right? He's not bound by space and time, etc. The New Testament says in John in first John and in Philippians that in the resurrection we will be made like him. Paul says our lowly bodies will be made to be conformed to the image of his glorious body. We will be made immortal. God alone is immortal. Therefore, we partake of God. Does that mean we partake of God's essence? No.
Yeah. So
So you have to have the essence energy distinction or you're an Aryan. Well, I think we have
you keep laughing at this, but you're literally making all the Aryan arguments. You're just going to say, "I don't care. I don't care." Well, you should care because that's that's salvation. You can't be saved as an Aryan with Aryan worldview.
We certainly need a distinction. I see no reason to take up an Eastern Orthodox.
Well, that's because of pride. You don't know what you're talking about. You You see no reason because you think you're right, and you're not. That's what I'm trying to tell you is that the whole system that you've got is wrong and you're arrogant about it. You're like, I don't really care what the church fathers say. That doesn't matter to me. It should matter to you because they're the ones that gave you the Bible.
Oh dear. Uh
what do you mean, oh dear? You don't even know that. Where do you think the Bible comes from?
Uh God.
Where? How did the So God came down and told the church uh what the canon is supposed to be? I don't know. The the word of God is the canon.
Where did the canon of scripture come from?
From from its author.
Who made the decision to put the books together? Do you not know this?
The canon of scripture is not a decision to recognize canonicity. What can
Yes, it is. That makes no sense. That's sophistry.
Yeah. So the question is what is the what is the epistemological ground
right
we're identifying the books of the that belong to God how do you do that without the church of history you can't
yeah by having the books
but that begs the question because and by the way you don't have the books you don't actually have the books of the church you took out books so that's not true
so you're wrong on both counts
all right So let's let's discuss the first.
So how is solos scripture true when for seven centuries there's no set canon. It's a really simple point.
Well let's let's go through one of these one of it can't be question begging because at least as far as I understand it the nature of question begging is when you make an argument where a conclusion is in the premise. But I didn't make any such argument. What I
you said God gives the cannon. It's known by God. What I said was that the books themselves, right, the writings authored by God are themselves sufficient to establish their own canonicity.
No, they're not. And this is ignorance on your own on your own part again because many of those books don't identify their author.
Are you not aware that there's seven centuries of debate on the canon of scripture?
What does that have to do with anything? Where was the church during those seven centuries without a fixed cannon? Therefore, they didn't have a solid scriptural principle. So, God, what do you keep saying this? Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Why do you keep saying this? Are you not aware of this? You didn't even know what cost of number one was. So, you're definitely not going to know this stuff.
This is just a terribly facious argument.
No, it's not because where is where how is the church how is God saving people without solos scripture? How is the church existing and operating without a fixed cannon for seven centuries?
I didn't grant you that it wasn't fixed.
Uh, no. That's easily demonstrable. You don't again, you show your ignorance.
What's the argument?
I can go and show you about eight different cannons over eight different centuries.
No, what you will show me?
Yes, I can. And that's from you want you want the books FF Bruce, the canon of scripture, Lee McDonald, the formation of the Christian biblical cannon. There's two Protestants right there that will tell you this.
What? What you'll show me are two or more Christians disagreeing on what the
precisely
not different cannons.
No, they're different cannons.
What is
they don't have the same lists and none of them have your list except your own.
Okay. An atheist and a Christian disagree about the nature of reality. That doesn't mean there's two different realities. That means there's disagreement on It means that that they're not part of your church. You're not in their church. The church that decided the canon, and this is a fact, is not your church. You're a heretic.
You're not part of that church.
First of all, first of all, the point is disagreement is not a consistent is not a sufficient condition.
It shows that there's no fixed cannon in the church.
No.
Yes, it does.
Yes, it does. Yes, it does. Nobody has your cannon except one person.
This is the simple fallacy of opinion.
It's not a fallacy because you can't tell me which one is the right one. How do you know which one's right?
I've already answered that question.
No, you haven't. You've just said the Prophecy cannon. How do you know that's right?
By possessing the cannon.
That's a circular argument and that's not valid. That doesn't tell you which one is right. No, it doesn't.
You just refuted yourself by saying the Protestant cannon is true. And I know it's the Protestant cannon by looking at the Protestant cannon is a dumb argument.
No, I didn't.
I You're terrible at this. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even realize there's centuries of debate on the cannon.
You didn't even know that.
You keep conflating debate about X.
How does the church exist in those centuries with no set cannon?
You keep conflating.
How does the church exist with no set cannon? You're telling me there is a set canon in those centuries? No, there's not.
You keep conflating the difference between some people disagreeing.
No, there is no Protestant canon. Don't you get that? There's not a Protestant canon.
Do you not understand there's not a Protestant canon?
That is the simplest f. I mean, that's post.
There's not a Protestant cannon. Even Jerome doesn't work for you. Don't you understand that? This is a simple argument. What? What is the
All right, I'm done.