Ultimate Refutation Of PSA | Fr Stephen De Young | Warren McGrew

Hey, what's going on? Welcome to Cleave to Antiquity. I've got a full panel here. We got Warren McGru, Father Steven De Young, and Alex Saurin here on for the ultimate reputation of penal substitutionary atonement. We're gonna we're going to be talking about uh some of the discussions that have been going on online and maybe uh looking at some of the arguments that uh you know people will typically make on this subject. Uh maybe what some of the reformers taught and start breaking these things down for you because I know there's a lot of confusion in this area. But thank you all so much for coming on the show. I'm excited to uh to chat and hang out.

>> Yeah. Thanks for having us.

Well, I saw Alex, you had a bit of a run in with uh with Dr. Jordan Cooper.

>> Supposedly doctor supposedly.

>> Yeah, supposedly. Yeah, the >> supposedly he's a doctor of theology or something. The same way that I'm supposedly a lawyer, something that's not worth engaging with, you know.

>> Right? Isn't that Isn't that wild? I had a bit of a uh a run in with him myself. I don't know if you know that, but >> as soon as I I was supposed to go on his show at one point, so when I was a Protestant, we we emailed back and forth or had messaged back and forth on YouTube or some platform and uh he was like, "Yeah, yeah, you know, you can come on or whatever." And then when I became uh when I made the announcement that I was journeying into Orthodox, he made a video response video before the announcement even came out, when the premiere was scheduled, he panic popped a video. So, I wasn't scheduled to go on the show, by the way. So, it wasn't like I pull a fast one on him, okay? But he panic popped a video, a response video that was like, you know, there are some people who go to, you know, the Orthodox church or the Catholic church for the smells and bells or they want to make a lot of money on on, you know, so he was he called me a grifter and he hadn't even seen the premiere video or seen any of my reasoning at all. So, he just panic popped, called me a grifter, circled the wagons immediately. So, I don't know. He might be a nice guy. I didn't have the opportunity to interact with him too much, but I will say this, he does seem very disingenuous when it comes to interacting with the Orthodox.

>> You know, it is telling that I have not spoken to this person ever in my life. The only interactions we've had are a few tweets that went back and forth. And I think that's a heck of a way to start off some sort of working relationship that he's going to go on a video and say that I'm not worth engaging with after never even talking to me ever, not even once in his entire life.

>> Right. Well, I think that's part of his uh his strategy to avoid any and all debates and have his worldview tested even in the slightest degree. But he'll do he'll do round circle panels talking about orthodoxy with Gavin Ortland and uh Michael Horton and all of these people, but he won't engage with us.

>> So >> yeah, I just watched that video and I think maybe there will be a a formal response in the works. I'm not sure yet.

>> But >> have you ever had any interaction with him? Uh father,

>> >> um only comedically. I used to troll his uh YouTube live chat and it would just be a lot of like I would call him on something and be like, "Well, yeah, well, yeah." You know, and he'd just like backpedal like 100 miles an hour and start >> qualifying everything and >> Yeah.

>> Well, what I thought I thought was interesting about his video was he didn't re he didn't re uh respond to any of the argumentation. He just said, "I didn't mean what I said in the video," >> which I wasn't even saying anyway. I didn't say that he meant what he said. I was just saying that >> he did he did correctly define spiritual death, though.

>> That's true.

>> There being separation from God >> and used and used Genesis 3 as an example just like I did. Like he gave the exact same definition. So >> yes, it does. That's pretty indicative, I think, of what he was talking about. You know, all those things aside, I think like there was that comment you pulled up, believe that said that he avoided the whole discussion, how does the father forsake the son? That was not even the point at issue. The point at issue was if we're talking about PSA, is it controversial to say that the son underwent or experienced or took on the punishment for spiritual death? Do you need a citation to say that? The point is, no. That's not a controversial claim at all. Look, Dr. Cooper uses the same language when he's talking about PSA, >> right?

>> That was the point. It has nothing to do with the merits of PSA. That said, the merits of PSA are bad anyways.

>> So, >> there aren't any.

>> There aren't any.

>> There aren't there aren't any.

>> There are no merits to evaluate. Yeah.

>> So, this was Yeah. I just thought it was funny that everybody with a PhD apparently defines spiritual death the same way unlike you know randos on Twitter. But also this once again impressed me. This is this is one of the reasons why I have no I have no interest in talking to somebody like Canon and Creed because like I would have to explain his own beliefs to him so he could understand my critique. Like that's not worth my time, man. like because all those guys ended up all abandoning PSA. So this is why it's kind of a big W the whole argument because they all moved to satisfaction theory. Every single one of them switched from PSA to satisfaction theory when they could not defend >> against just that one argument they couldn't defend PSA. And so they all went to and for people who don't know here's the difference. Okay. Petal substitutionary atonement says Christ took the punishment that was due to us for our sins. Okay. Satisfaction theory says Christ's sufferings satisfied God's justice so that he does not have to punish us for our sins. Right? And that's the position they all move to. Well, no, he doesn't actually take the punishment. He just he suffers and then takes then that takes away the punishment. So it's a sort of a poorly thought through version of satisfaction theory. But that's where they all instantly moved.

>> It's amazing. I mean when you start pressing the problems of PSA, how quickly its adherence will abandon >> the unique entailments and claims of PSA while saying that it's the heart of the gospel. and they'll start appealing to ransom, restored icon, christrist, victor, you know, satisfaction. They they they they continue to retreat and they give up little entailments and and unique um you know, unique uh claims within PSA in order to defend it. And when you're done, you go, well, what are you defending? You're defending you're defending satisfaction. You're not defending PSA or you're defending ransom. You're not defending PSA. What are you doing? Why are you making this the heart of the gospel and like you've abandoned it? Like, does do you really think you've abandoned the gospel while you've been defending the gospel?

>> Yeah. Yeah. And it it doesn't And of course, they have no clue about how that just pulling that out like is too big of a Jenga block. Like the rest of their system falls apart if you don't have I mean, say what you like about Calvinism. It is a tight logical system that all fits together. If you start pulling pieces out, it doesn't work. Right? Like even Armenians who believe in pedal substitutionary atonement, it doesn't really work >> because the only way penetal substitutionary atonement can work is if you believe in limited atonement or you're a universalist.

>> That's it.

>> Because if Christ has taken the actual punishment for actual sins, then God can't also punish the people who committed them for the same sins, right? like PSA makes God unjust enough, but that's like next level. Now he's punishing like multiple people for the same sins. Um, so either you have to say he only died for the elect or you have to just say, well, everyone's sins are forgiven, which is basically the move like Carl Bart makes. Carl Bart ultimately just argues, yeah, everyone is reprobate in Adam and everyone is elect in Christ, right? like every human and that's how he sort of gets around that. But classically Wesley and Armenians believed in limited atonement.

>> Interesting.

>> They just disagreed about the basis of election. Right. Election wasn't purely based on God's will. It was based on his fornowledge. But they still held that Christ only died for the sins of those who he forneew would come to faith. That's how they get around that. But most people who identify as Armenians today don't hold to that to try to use as a workaround. It is wild to see non-Calvinists defending PSA so inconsistently and yet so adamantly asserting that this is just the historic gospel and they're they're not at all consistent and you start exposing it and they get pretty mad about it. Um, you know, but it's I think it's cognitive dissonance where they haven't really thought through it. And it growing up, you know, I I didn't know there was even a different atonement model. When I when I was delivered out of Calvinism, my first thought was, am I going to be a Christian at the end of this? Because I conflated the two so heavily that I thought I was leaving Christ. And that that's how terrifying that paradigm shift can be. But once I realized like, no, I'm actually crying out to the Savior. I've I've arrived at the sure foundation. I'm good. Then my next thought was, well, why did he come? If if uh if total depravity is false, and I can immediately tell penal substitution was false. I was like, why did why did Jesus come? I I didn't know there were other atonement theories. I was that sheltered in my 30 some odd years of being a Calvinist. That's all that I knew. And so, while I get frustrated this side of the debate sometimes when I'm arguing with Calvinists, I'm like, don't you get it? I also have to remind myself like where I was in that moment and I felt like I was having my faith attacked and you know I was just I was so insulated and and shortsighted and and didn't have much of of a perspective that I felt like Calvinism is the gospel, PSA is the gospel and you know in that system everything's the gospel because if you don't then it collapses you know and but um all of a sudden this side of it you go you know God makes so much more sense and is infinitely better. And oh my goodness, am I infinitely more in need of him? And is he is he this this is just this is phenomenal. This this this is the the the fear that I had as a as a as a Calvinist that that if I poked and prodded I looked at the man behind the curtain, I would find out it was all a sham. And yet I find out no, Calvinism was the sham. God is infinitely infinitely better. It's just um but I'm glad to see I'm glad to see that we're in an age now where there is this popular uh movement to to to expose those problems and criticize them and offer um you know the truth and um and this is available to people because as early as 2014 when I came out of Calvinism channels like this you know father I didn't know I didn't know about you at all. I didn't know anything about the Orthodox Church when I was a, you know, Calvinist. I knew there were Catholics and then there were Armenians, you know, and um and so I I'm grateful.

>> Yeah. The good old days. So, I'm grateful, you know, that that we're in the day and age that we are where people can be exposed to these things and and be challenged and hopefully, Lord willing, be, you know, shook loose of that uh that bad ideology and bad theology. And I I've argued, you know, how it it can literally be um anti-gosspel. It can be antirist. It can be anti-reason. It's just and and yet so many people are anchored into it and and fearful of questioning it.

>> But hopefully hopefully programs like this will help shake people free. Yeah, there's Yeah, I mean, if you if if you've been taught in Sunday school and by the songs you sing in church >> and by a good chunk of the sermons you've ever heard the PSA is the gospel that this is like ecclesial anxiety on steroids, right?

>> Oh, yeah.

>> Like, wait a minute, what? you know, um, and I'm amazed how many people I've encountered who think that like the Roman Catholic Church teaches PSA. Not Roman Catholics, they usually know better. There's a couple exceptions roaming around on Twitter, but >> yeah, >> most most a most Roman Catholics. And to be to be fair to Eric, even though he's not fair to me, uh to be fair to Eric, uh I happen to know that in his book, the position he takes is not actually PSA.

>> He just continues to want to use PSA as this kind of weird ecumenical umbrella term. Mhm.

>> For reasons unknown to me,

>> I've noticed I've noticed in like William Lane Craig's defense of PSA in his writings, it's it's pretty laid out that it's the various claims and entailments of PSA, but his public face where he's defending it, like in his discussion with Greg Boyd, he abandoned literally everything. Like you don't you don't need penalty, you don't need a substitute, you don't need any of that, you don't need a tone, you don't need And I'm like I'm like dude talk about a Mott and Bailey.

>> Yeah.

>> I mean that's that William William Lane Craig really needs to add two more names to his is already rather lengthy name. It needs to be William Mott Lane Bailey Craig. Well, I got him I got him to uh again when I was trolling a chat box um I got him to double down on his Apollinarian Christologology. I got him to double down on his heretical christologology.

>> Uh because I brought up the whole issue that I've brought up recently, right, on on YouTube of if Christ suffers spiritual death, Christ is separated from God, right? There's only two ways that can work. Either the first and second persons of the Trinity are separated or the divine and human natures of Christ are separated.

>> Right? And so I put that to him and he said, "Well, with my neopolitanarian christologology, that's not a problem because the logos departed from the human nature of Christ at that point and it was just Christ's humanity that dies on the cross." So, yeah, he just straight doubled down. But see, those are the kind of Calvinists I could respect, right? I've I've known those kind of Calvinists where like you push them on that you say for Migley's historian and and you show up and they're just like okay I don't think the third ecumenical council has any kind of special authority right it's like well okay at least you're consistent right like

>> >> yeah consistent

>> >> those people I feel like are the most uh are the most tiresome to deal with though, you know, if especially if you're actually trying to have a conversation with them and not just laugh you You know what I mean? Oh, well, like I saw a pu uh there was a I don't know what denomination he was. I think he was a Baptist Baptist pastor on X post something like um he he said this about the Catholic church, but he said yes, the church was wrong for 1500 years until until you know the reformation.

>> It's like where do you even go from there?

>> Yeah, you can't. There's no

>> Okay, so all right. Well, then you're not a part of the church that Christ established. I mean, I don't know. What do I even do with that?

>> Well, they're just telling on themselves at that point, you know? You just go

>> like you're you're you're denying that you're part of the church, bro. I mean, like,

>> you're just telling on yourself. And they don't realize that they're doing it a lot of times.

>> If they're a Calvinist, the monkey wrench is you bring up St. Augustine.

>> Oh, yeah.

>> Because they don't want to throw him under the bus.

>> Yeah. Yeah. You know, there's that.

>> Well, okay. St. Augustine. Yeah.

>> In this case, it went from Augustine in the fifth all the way to the 15th. You know, 16 >> St. Paul, then St. Augustine, and then Martin Luther, right?

>> That's that's the that's where they have to jump from.

>> Yeah. You I saw um I saw a lot of people So, people on X were talking about, oh, well, you know, they don't understand PSA. No, no reformer has ever said Christ died a spiritual death or you know anything like that. I've seen personally statements where there are some people in the reformation period like Calvin who has said that he was separated from God. Right.

>> Kind of kind of an important figure in Calvinism that John Calvin.

>> Yeah. Exactly. Well, but it's it's insane to me. Did uh did Jordan Cooper say that, Alex? I thought he did. I thought he did say nobody said nobody has ever said that he was separated that Christ was separated from from God or that you know he turned his face away from him or that he died a spiritual death. He said one of those statements in his most recent video. Do you remember?

>> Yeah. I don't remember if he made a categorical statement like that but I do I have a quote from Calvin here from it's book two in the institutes chapter 16 section 10 uh where he says that and he starts off the section by saying nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death >> that implies there's something going on here that's more than corporeal death right at the end of this section he says that after explaining what Christ endured in theight of man. The creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God. He's talking about the heroing of Hades, by the way. Totally misinterprets that doctrine.

>> Well, not actually the heroing of Hades because he doesn't

>> some weird version of it.

>> He believes he experiences hell on the cross. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Yeah. And that's what he goes on to say that the uh the creed goes on to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price that he bore in his soul the tortures of a condemned and ruined man. That's his human soul experiencing hell.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> Everyone uses this damned and condemned language, right?

>> And so I saw that was the first attempt. the first attempt for people like candidate greed uh who I now find incredibly entertaining.

>> Like the level of cloudishness of someone saying, "How dare you call Vermigly an historian?" Here he is positively quoting Theodora the who was condemned as an historian at an ecumenical council.

>> Right. But he first, right, he posts all this language about Christ being damned and condemned on the cross. And it's like, okay, so when the New Testament talks about eternal death and it talks about eternal condemnation, is it talking about two different things? Obviously not, right? like,

>> well, you need to walk us through it like we're five, I guess.

>> And if we're talking about eternal death, right? Well, sometimes you got to dogwalk people through this stuff.

>> I agree. That's what I'm saying. Like, these people apparently have doctoral level degrees and you have to dogwalk them through this stuff.

>> If it's if it's eternal death, okay, is it eternal physical death? Well, no. That would deny the universal bodily resurrection, which we all believe in as Christians. So if it's not eternal physical death, what kind of death is it?

>> Right?

>> It's eternal spiritual death. Okay? So obviously Christ didn't experience that from a Calvinist perspective for an eternity. But as Calvin is very clear to say and all of these other people say very clearly, Sproul says it very clearly,

>> says it, everybody says it very clearly,

>> he experienced that damnation, that eternal spiritual death on the cross. He took that punishment. That is the punishment.

>> So they start doing this. Well, he felt XYZ. I say okay so is that the punishment for my sin that as I am dying I feel XYZ no right so if that's all Christ experienced that's not penal substitution because what he took is not the punishment

>> if you're going to say he took the punishment it has to be the actual punishment

>> right

>> yeah which is which is wild that they they skip past it that would just mean that under their view, right? You didn't take the entire

>> punishment, right? If if they're going to bypass bypass that one part of it.

>> Yes.

>> But I want to address this because this was something that a lot of people So, I've noticed this. This has always been a thing in Protestant apologetics, by the way.

>> Somebody will make because people people don't know how to do critical reading. Yeah.

>> Okay. We've forgotten this in in the world of quote mine apologetics. We've forgotten this. So you see one citation that says one thing that means you can disregard the rest of his writings. Right? So this section this is what is being copied and pasted by the people coping on X. This says uh uh this is from the institutes. Uh God the father did not stop loving his son. Okay. So this is what they're posting all over the he didn't stop loving his son. That means he couldn't have died a spiritual death. What are you talking about?

>> That's why the historianism Yes. As I said, Calvin does not break apart the trinity. He does not use option one and break apart the trinity. He takes option two and is a historian. So for the Calvinist tradition, Christ's divine nature joins with the father and the spirit in damning his human nature. Now, if you think one of Christ's natures can condemn and damn the other without them being separate, I don't know what separate means.

>> How you could possibly claim that without separating the two? One is doing one thing and what is doing the opposite thing. That's at the same time

>> I would like to say that section 11 actually does not help any Protestant here. It makes it worse. In fact, in the first few sentences here, I'll just read the first uh two says in this sense Peter says that God raised up Christ having loosed the pains of death because it was not possible he should beholden of it. Citing Acts 2:24, he does not mention death simply but says that the son of God endured the pains produced by the curse and wrath of God. The source of death says that God is the source of death.

>> Yes. Which directly contradicts Hebrews that says that the devil is the one who held the power of death and Christ took it away from him.

>> Yes. Exactly.

>> So listen, Calvinists, when we have a tradition of men and it contradicts scripture, we go with the scripture, right? So we go with Hebrews, not Calvin, right? So, one one thing that um this this person Murdoch, Father Steven D. Young, where does Calvin say that? I'm not even disagreeing, but where can we find that? So, I don't think he understands what a logical entailment of a position is. Well, we just cited we just cited the two sections that we're talking about. We're talking about the logical entailment of holding that position. John Calvin doesn't come out in his institutes and say, "Hello everyone. I am a historian. I believe two natures of Jesus actually can act against each other. That is you're not going to find that in the institutes.

>> But vermigi essentially does that.

>> Vermigi wrote a text called the dialogue of the two natures of Christ where he sets out what is standard Calvinist Christologology. Okay. Vermic you will read vermicul if you go to a Calvinist seminary and study Christologology. Right. He's who you read on the two natures of Christ. It isn't a story. You can go read it.

>> I know. I told Eric Ibara to go read it. And apparently him writing a book on the topic at all, having to read a whole book was just too much for him. He needed a meme. Okay. But

>> if you're a human who's able to read a whole book,

>> it's not even that long of a book. Verbigley's on the two natures of Christ, right? And it's not just an entailment, right? He lays out a notorian christologology >> in which the human Christ suffers and dies on the cross, right? Ser of the divine nature who's involved in condemning him. It's laid right out there and he quotes the adorit all the time. Okay, Jordan Cooper of all people should know this because Lutheran have been complaining about Calvinists citing Theodorit for 500 years >> and have been calling them notorians for 500 years because of this and the extracalisticum. Right.

>> So, I know when Jordan Cooper's online with other Protestants and even Roman Catholics, if you watch his quote unquote debate with Jimmy Aken, we're all one big happy family and we don't disagree about anything. Okay? But he won't give the Eucharist to a Calvinist, >> right?

>> Or pray with one, right? Why? because they're historians. That's why they're heretics according to Lutheranism. So, yeah, this weird it it's odd to me. I just I I have to think he was just confused and didn't know why his name was brought up and felt like he had to defend himself or something.

>> Yeah. Well, that's that's exactly what I think happened because that's that's exactly what he did when he jumped the gun when he saw the premiere coming up on Orthodox Ethos that I was going to announce that I was journeying into Orthodoxy. He hadn't even seen the video yet. And he goes ahead and he makes an entire response video, you know, without hearing a lick of the reason. So, I I could see him I could see him doing that. But people were pointing out the same thing that you just said, father, that um it was odd that Jordan Cooper is doing these like like arm in-armm like with with Calvinist videos where they're defending like Protestantism as an umbrella term when don't Lutheran have like their own semi exclusivity claims? Not really super exclusive, but kind of.

>> I think a lot of them have closed communion, right?

>> They have closed communion. They won't pray with Calvinists, >> right? They no longer think Baptists should all be uh massacred at mass. So, that's a good development. But Luther Luther did >> nice. That's funny. Um, so yeah, I mean I I thought it was wild that a lot of them were saying that none of the none of the reformers there are no uh in in the video that Jordan Cooper did, by the way, talking about you, Alex, he said none of them ever use this language. No um no mainstream Calvinist voice uses this language or something along those lines. But I mean, Sprawl literally said Christ was an >> except all of them. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Except they all did, right? I mean Straw literally said Christ was anathema like he he experienced a full separation like all sorts of things like that.

>> He says he was an he was obscene. He was the the the greatest example of like the chief circumcision that he was anathema damned cut off cast into outer darkness lost the beatotific vision. Like we can go on and on and on. He didn't accidentally misspeak you. It wasn't like >> you know sometimes with the with a lot of words you can stumble into error. Uh just RC had just a lot of error with a lot of words.

>> Yes. A Lutheran defending Calvinist Christologology is just like a new level of absurdity like in the world. Well, it shows it shows the fear I think that you see within the reformation of them losing um just the the the popular arguments and the online arguments and they are they are losing in mass. And so there's this fear of well let's lock arms and let's be friends today and fight to retain this gatekeeping role and if we can survive then we'll turn around and slit each other's throats metaphorically later, >> you know. But it it's it's it's motivated by fear.

>> I mean, a a much more reasonable tactic if you're a Lutheran would be to point out how many of these sticky issues you avoid.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. Like pointing out that they don't hold to PSA.

>> Mhm.

>> Right. They hold to a version of satisfaction theory that has its own separate problems, but Right. They don't hold to PSA. They believe in baptismal regeneration. They believe in the real presence in the Eucharist. They have the idea of sacraments. They ha right like they could basically and a lot of Lutheran for a long time did this online. Right? When people were going after Protestantism for XYZ, they come out and say, "Well, hey, that's not true about Lutheranism, right? They would just sort of accept themselves." I think they're tying themselves to an anchor.

>> Yeah.

>> Right.

>> Right. They're just they've decided to go down with the ship of all of you know of of evangelicalism. Um, this is an important thing though too. Most of the people online who you encounter who identify as Calvinists are not Calvinists.

>> That's right. That's a good point.

>> There's a tier of Calvinists. Most of the people you run into online who identify as Calvinists are evangelicals who believe in predestination. Calangelicals.

>> They believe in they believe in tulip.

>> Yeah. And that's about it, >> right? They believe in tulip. And tulip, for those who don't know, was actually originally tip, but that's harder to remember in terms of the order. Um, but those are the five CA cannons of the Senate of Dort that was held in Dorrect, the Netherlands of the 16th century. Calvin was dead. Okay. Has nothing to do with Calvin directly. Calvin's view of predestination was basically the standard Dominican view in the 16th century. And he doesn't talk about it much in the institutes. The Institutes is far more focused on his eukaristic theology and and uh pneumatology. That's what Calvin's own writings are mainly focused on. Uh and then beneath that his ecclesiology. Interestingly enough, your reformed Baptist or Calangelical rejects all those parts of Calvin. They reject his ecclesiology. They reject his sacramental theology. They reject right like they even reject his numatlogy. So all the things that are unique and potentially positive about Calvin they reject and they they just take this bit, right? And then if you go up a tier, if you go to your like James White tier, right, who's a reformed Baptist who's a little more educated, right, he realizes that Tulip has some entailments around it that he has to at least accept those.

>> So he's got a little bit more, right? But there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance because he's trying to do covenant theology without baptizing babies, which is hard to do. Right. So,

>> you don't want to talk about James White and babies. He doesn't have a good track.

>> Oh, yeah.

>> True.

>> But, uh, Right. And then there's a there's a tier above that where you get into like actual like Presbyterians >> and Dutch reformed people who actually hold to most of Calvin, right? Albeit different interpretations of different forms. like the Dutch tradition is different than the the uh English reform tradition in various ways, but they take it as a package deal, right? uh in general and then you have the the there are a handful of guys in the United States who are real Calvinists like right like Richard Mhler who wrote post-reformation reformed dogmatics like Scott Clark who wrote whose work is on the Protestant scholastics who has like a PhD from Oxford right like those guys actually deeply understand the reformed tradition like in all its de in all its details and stuff right Um, I think Scott Clark still has a Twitter account, but he's not getting into arguments with people.

>> That's that's to be commended.

>> Yeah, those aren't the people you're engaging with.

>> Yeah. Those aren't the people you're engaging with. You're engaging with with people who identify as Calvinist because they believe in predestination, unlike the other people who go to their Baptist church.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. Which they may or may not claim isn't a Baptist church and is non-denominational. Yeah, Warren, do you have those? I was looking for a second. Do you have those uh quotes? Somebody sent you a couple screenshots. I I thought it might be cool to pull up on X. Somebody was saying um Oh, it was a Latinizer guy. He was saying, "Oh, no, actually, Orthodoxy does teach PSA or something." And he sent you screenshots of some citations. I think it would be cool to show how he's confused and he's conflating theories because a lot of these guys get caught up in word concept fallacies. If you could find that, bookmark that and let's see if we can bring that up on the screen because

>> you said they sent it to me in a was it a private message or was it they just tweeted?

>> No, it was I I don't I can't see your private messages.

>> I thought maybe you read that he sent it or something. I was like, "No, >> no, no, no. He he commented he commented to you or something and he was like he uh I think it was

>> my favorite was when one of those guys posted St. Gregory Palamos saying that Christ by his physical death took away our physical and spiritual death and he didn't die a spiritual death

>> right

>> that quotation being in his mind proof that we believe in PSA

>> I think that's literally the exact opposite of what St. Gregory said,

>> I guess so. Also like the guy that kind of, you know, really fleshed out the the doctrine of theosis and the triads and uh our doctrine of God with Barlum, you know, like that's how do you get theosis and double imputation? I'm not sure whatever.

>> Uh Nikolai Korea says, "I hope I hope you guys will address quote mines from latinizers or at least break down a few." Nikolai, do me a favor. Send me some, tag me and some on X so I can pull them up because I can't find the one I wanted to pull up for this this stream. So, I know you get a lot of you get into a lot of arguments with those guys online. So, send me some, tag me in some so I can uh I'll pull those up on the on the screen here because it does seem like a lot of times whenever I I read I try not to argue with these guys on X because X arguments are just like

>> I'm too busy for that, dude. I can't go back and forth via text with somebody. That's why back in the day when I would do debates as a Protestant, I'd say, "Okay, well, if you disagree with me, pop on stream right now and we will debate."

>> But >> well, they're all deep in the grips of Dunning Krueger. So, like, they're not looking to learn anything anyway because they think they already know everything,

>> right? I just tagged you on a a tweet, uh, Cleave, so you can

>> anybody who uh disagrees with him is just a modernist and da da da da, you know, like they're not even willing to hear an argument.

>> Yeah. Well, what is uh what's Hill's deal? Because does he teach PSA? He says he doesn't, but

>> Hill don't don't even bother talking about him. He's not relevant to anything.

>> There you go. All right. Well, there you go. Perfect. All right. Let's see here. Yeah. What? Like I I asked for a uh a good block list when I first This is so small, dude. When I first was journeying into orthodoxy, the first thing I asked for was a block list of subversives. So, a lot of these guys I just have had block day one. Um, let's see. Gosh, it is so small, dude. What the Why are all these quotes?

>> Yeah, they're great memes, too, because it's always some wall of text, you know?

>> Oh my goodness, bro. These are tiny. Okay,

>> look right here. It says ransom. That's PSA.

>> You were punished.

>> It says he died for our sins.

>> It says four. It says four. That's PSA.

>> All right. Well, let's see. Let's see if we can read this. I don't know. This might be This might be too small.

>> Yeah, that looks like the kind of Oh, man. Yeah, you can. Come on.

>> Maybe open a new window. No, that didn't work. I don't have my reading glasses, man. I'm not gonna be able to

>> Yeah, that's that might be that might be too hard to do. Let me see if somebody has another one. Send it to me. That one's way too small. Maybe I can open in new tab and zoom in. Does that work? Oh, yeah. That works there. All right. Let me do it that way. All right. So, we can at least go and do one or two of them. The other one is way too small and it's all blurred out. Okay. St. innocent of cursing. Uh but as a sacrifice for sins of the whole world, he still had to endure. Another mis terrible suffering which none of us can bear shall torment all the malice and power of men are not capable of producing. Who produced it? The father himself the justice being one with the father in divinity. God man among the most cruel physical and spiritual suffering could receive strength. Justice that punishes the sin of men in his person demanded the source of consolation also be completely blocked. It was blocked. The father himself finally abandoned the son without separating from the uh humanity. The divinity was so hidden the soul of the crucified god man. His humanity was given over to all horrors of helpless sorrow. And he was found like one of us. The father's abandonment was the last flame of the burnt offering of the sacrifice of the cross. After this, there remain nothing either on earth or in hell that could uh be endured and not be endured. This is a big huge wall of text. He's he's he's from the the 19th century.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> So, what do you think about this?

>> Um, well, first of all, the problem is we're reading all of this in English translation and we don't know who made the translation.

>> But here here's another thing we have to understand. Even if you have saint in front of your name in the Orthodox church, that doesn't make you infallible.

>> Right.

>> Right. Like if you disagree with other fathers, right? If you have a father who is the odd man out, right? Like I personally don't think St. St. Gregory of Nissa taught universalism. Okay.

>> But let's say he did. That would not justify you being a universalist.

>> Right.

>> Right. Because all of the other fathers, right? There are some places you could pull out of St. John Crosan where it seems like he's saying that the Theotokos committed sins, right? It's a teaching of the churches she didn't. Right.

>> That's true. Yeah. I mean I

>> So you pass over that somebody asked me about this this weekend. What about Catacumans? Because they're reading the Orthodox Way Metropolitan Calisos where does this bad Protestant reading of Psalm 22.

>> Mhm.

>> In this context, I just said he's wrong. There's a couple other places in that book he's wrong. He quotes a gnostic gospel at one point in that book.

>> Mhm.

>> Right. Like no one is infallible. I am wrong sometimes too. Right.

>> Right.

>> So,

>> oh, sorry. Go ahead.

>> Even if even if this is just a word for word verbatim literal translation, which I doubt, right, of a homaly he gave, we don't believe that just because you're a saint, you never give a wrong-headed homaly. Mhm.

>> And that's a great point too, father, because

>> early on when I was uh investigating orthodoxy, I say early on, about halfway into my journey, I've been doing it for a while now.

>> Um,

>> but I would get presented with this sort of content. And it's like, ah, aha, look, PSA, aha, you know, inherited guilt. And, uh, then I would I would get online and I would go and I would find the original language, which is very difficult to do. you couldn't do it in every one of these.

>> And then I would find that section which is very difficult to do because I don't speak that language. So I'm having to use a lot of tools.

>> And then I get it and I start studying it and I look into it and I go this this is a translator bias. This is that's not at all what was being said here. That's so evident. And yet they're presenting it online as though this is definitively what he said and these are the concepts that he definitively meant. This is his intent and it's penal substitution. and you're like, "No, that's not at all what he was talking about. He was talking about a consequence, not a penalty." And that's more evident in the original language. And here you see, you know, it's a reference to mortality and death, not, you know, divine punishment in the form of wrath and and separation from God. And so I I would encourage people to be very careful and I just echo your sentiment there. If you can't if you can't find the original language,

>> then then discard it, you know, just um don't don't trust the translation. That's what you've probably heard me say to people like, "What's the actual word?"

>> Yeah.

>> And they'll say the English word and I'm like, "No, no, no, no, no. This wasn't written in English." Right. What's the actual word words that were used,

>> right?

>> Right. But I don't I don't have that text in Russian to go through. I suspect we would find something similar. Part of what happens is there's a period in Eastern Europe and Russia that's referred to as the Latin captivity of the church >> between the 17th and 19th centuries. And it's not that these saints weren't saints. It's not that these saints were all, you know, cryptoapists. That's not what we're saying, right? It's that they were using Latin at all the seminaries. They were forced to by the Zar, right? So they're using Latin language textbooks. Jesuits were designing the curriculums in some case. And so these fathers and saints are trying to express the Orthodox faith in western theological language.

>> They're doing the best job you can do, but you have to take that into account when you read the language they use, right? and go past just, oh, they said this word that means this, right, in Roman Catholic theology or means this in reformed theology, therefore they must mean the same thing, right? Um that was just the language they had to uh

>> yeah, to use.

>> I think uh also it's a homaly, right? So they're going to use more artistic uh impressionistic like passionate language in a hom in a homaly I imagine than you would use in some like theological tree times, right? Because you're also speaking to the people in the congregation. But uh another thing I would say is that you probably shouldn't get your theology from graphics online like

>> Yeah. No, I've had I've had big quotes like this where like mentioned you can't find them. There's this famous big quote from St. John Chrissum that everybody quotes all the time. And I spent a couple of weeks trying to backtrack it >> and my backtracking ability stopped with a particular collection of sayings of St. John that was published in English in the 19th century. There is no extent work of St. John that has that paragraph in it.

>> Yeah.

>> Or of anyone else. I could it wasn't even a case where oh this was misattributed say I could find anyone saying it.

>> Yeah.

>> I've done that too but my my tracing down I like kind of stopped after a day. I was like this is probably not a real quote you know this kind of stops after

>> but it's like that's why if you just like buy like buy physical books that's why I'm such a big proponent of it. Like first of all, it's it's kind of a bunny trail, but like they are changing your ebooks without permission, right? They are going in and like updating to new editions without telling you, without asking you for your permission. If you go on your Kindle, you know, I think they did this with um uh what's the Little House on the Prairie series? There was some like racial stuff that was sensitive, so they went in and they changed it. And like >> who's to say that they won't do that with like Petristics or like

Other books that we have to go in and change things after the fact? Buy the physical books, right? And I, I've bought many Petristics. I've read a lot of them to like more or less degrees, depending on which church father you're talking about. Like, there's no way I'm telling you, there's no way you can read what they have to say about the atonement in like the first seven, 800 years and come away thinking penal substitutionary atonement. It's impossible.

>> We also don't know the context surrounding that paragraph.

>> Right. Very next paragraph, he might have said, "Now, by this, I do not mean..."

>> Somebody. Yeah.

>> Let me show this real quick though, because I, I copied that entire citation into Google to see if I could find where that citation was from. And it literally pulls up nothing. So, I don't think, I don't think that's a real citation, 'cause usually what you can do is you can copy the citation and put it into Google and it'll pull something up. But I just copied that whole thing.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> And it just says, "Your search did not match any documents."

>> So, I don't know. Even if I take the, the quotations off to make it not exact, it doesn't pull that up. It pulls up some reformed guy's writing. Like, it's not a, it's not a...

>> But I tell you, as somebody who's on the fence and and looking into this and questioning it, and you get inundated with this sort of stuff, it can be very alarming and, uh, discouraging. And, and you go, "Oh my gosh, what's going on?" And so, it's, it's a great tool to weaponize fear, uncertainty, and keep people imprisoned and, and in bondage. Really.

>> This is such an important point because a lot of these Discord kids do this, and they will make their own church father quotes using AI. There was a, um, uh, the the papist guy, Talon Papist. He just went through and what was the document he just, like, Vatican 2 documents?

>> Yeah. I just translated this myself from the Latin so we could actually see, you know, so on and so forth using AI.

>> Yeah, that's not going to cause any type of issues whatso... Even Eric Ibara was like, uh, "Where did you learn Latin?"

>> Yeah.

>> "You're 15. Like, where did you learn Latin? You're not even an adult. Like, what are you doing?"

>> Well, that was... Yeah. And sometimes AI just makes up quotes.

>> Right.

>> Right. So, one of the previous little online blowups where people decided I was, I was, uh, evil, uh, was when we pointed out on Lord of Spirits that in the Orthodox Church, Samson is not a saint, like Samson in the book of Judges, because, like, you know, he's not on the calendar, there aren't any icons, you know, just some basic stuff. St. Ephraim the Syrian, in him on paradise, literally says he's in hell.

>> Little things like that, right?

>> Um, and these people flipped out. "Oh no, my muscle man. My Hercules. You cannot say..."

>> Hercules. Hercules.

>> Right. No, these people, uh, not only they, they got Uncut Mountain Supply to Photoshop a non-canonical Samson icon to try to prove me wrong.

>> Wow.

>> Wow.

>> See, there's an icon. It's like, "Yeah, when was that generated? And by who? What iconographer painted it?" "Oh, no iconographer." Uh, you know, um, somebody recently, they're still on about it. Somebody posted a cathus to Samson that they wrote. And the high comedy is they say,

>> Uh, "This was translated from the original language."

>> It doesn't say what language and it doesn't say by who.

>> The original language. But in the context of all that, got seven or eight copies from different people of this list of Petristic quotes saying wonderful things about Samson that they had gotten from AI. Every single one was fake. People don't understand what AI is or what to use it for. Like, it doesn't do research for you. It uses logic chains. Like, it's a research tool. You still have to cite-check AI. People, if you don't know this, you have to cite-check AI. Like, no, it's not going to do the work for you.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. You can't, you cannot use AI for church father citations. Now, I'm not saying that's what they did here,

>> but, uh, you know, just, just a quick reverse search on the citation on both citations I was about to pull up from those screenshots, it doesn't pull up anything. So, uh, I'm not sure if they were AI translations or if they're just from like a book that's not available online, but either way, what you said originally, Father, is super important. We don't get our theology from one saint quote, which unfortunately seems to be what these online kids are doing. They're taking like random quotes from the Saints and they are disregarding what was officially taught and laid down at Black. Which, which appears to me, you can't hold PSA, right?

>> Yes. Well, they, they aren't like going and reading books to try to learn what the church teaches.

>> They have a view they've decided on.

>> Right?

>> And they go and they look for quotes to support it. That's why they use AI because they don't know how to do real research, right?

>> Um, even just quote mining, they don't know how to do it, right? Like, by hand, but they just look for quotes that seemed to support them to back up their point, right? And they think, I think that was a big part of what was going on with the argument Alex got into, is like, "Well, Father Steven needs to give us some quotes to back up his point," because that's how you... That's a good point. They're so, they're so used to thinking in that way, they can't even think outside of that, uh, that way, that methodology. Like, they're so stuck in ChatGPT quotes.

>> Yes. You don't just do dueling quotes, right? Like...

>> Well, I guess you, you stack up your proof text, I'll stack up my proof text, and whoever has like slightly more, they win at the end of the day, I guess. Right. Theology now...

>> It really is living out their their their approach to scripture with with the Petristics as well. It's just battling and and cobbling it together. And and what every one of them do is they begin with a, um, a conceptual grid that they think that this is what the truth is or what they like. It's a little, little idol. And they'll rip out verses out of context and Petristics out of context, and they'll papier-mâché. And when they're done, they've got something that kind of has the rough appearance of legitimacy, but it's all ripped out of context. And when you examine it, you go, "This isn't at all what scripture or the church teaches." But yet, at first glance, it can have this appearance of legitimacy. And, um, you know, but yeah, you're right, they're taking their their approach to scripture to the Petristics as well.

>> And, and they're trying to carve out little online fiefdoms, little codices of followers and,

>> this kind of thing, which is, you know, exactly the kind of person St. Paul tells us over and over again to mark and avoid, right? Like...

>> Yes.

>> We have, uh, Father Deacon in the chat. He says, "I'm willing to come on if you want. I don't know if we can have a panel with more than four, but I sent you an invite to your DMs if you want to come chat with us, Father Deacon."

>> Um, I had there, so this other quote that they had, even though it's probably, you know, I can't, I can't reverse check it, but the point that I wanted to make about this here is that this doesn't even entail necessarily a PSA position. You'd have to see what else he talks about, right? This just says the word atonement, the word reconciliation, assumed condemnation, but what is it talking about? Is it talking about he had a spiritual death? Is it talking about both? Because there's, there's parts that are missing here. And I feel like people just hear language and they automatically assume it entails everything that PSA entails without really reading the rest of it or understanding what else would be necessary for it to be PSA.

>> And always importantly, read what's not highlighted.

>> Yeah. Exactly.

>> The reconciliation of God to human beings through the incarnation.

>> Yeah. It's, it's theosis, what he's talking about, union. It's, it's not PSA. It's, yeah, it's, it's not.

>> Yeah, it goes to show that like a lot of these things can be debunked by like just reading them or cite-checking them. And like, if you're familiar with St. Maximus the Confessor, like he uses this language all the time. But when he says like, "assumed the condemnation of the condemned," right, if you just read like his, uh, works on Christology, cosmic mystery of Jesus Christ, this is the language that he uses. He says, "Therefore, the Lord did not know my sin, that is the mutability of my free choice. Neither did he assume nor become my sin. Rather, he became the sin that I caused." In other words, he assumed the corruption of human nature that was a consequence of the mutability of my free choice. For our sake, he became a human being naturally liable to passions and used the sin in quotes that I caused to destroy the sin that I commit. He's talking about putting on the consequences of sin. Not like committing sin, but like the consequences of that sin of Adam.

>> Right. He comes into the world.

>> The incarnation, basically.

>> Yes.

>> Somebody's saying, "We have Father Josiah Trinum in the chat. I'm looking for his comment."

>> Petristic here.

>> Is he here?

>> They might be trolling you.

>> I don't know.

>> Let Father Trenum join. Let, why don't you let Father Josiah join?

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> I hear he tried to get on Cleave's channel and Cleave wouldn't even let him on.

>> Yeah. If, if Father, if Father Josiah Turner wants to come on the show, you are welcome anytime. I will not...

>> That's a guy. Like the Latinizers are trying to say that Father Josiah is teaching PSA and I'm like, that is probably one of the last people on the planet. No, he knows what it is.

>> Yes. Well, they, they aren't like going and reading books to try to learn what the church teaches.

>> Yes. That's a, it's a good point. He does actually know what it is.

>> Yeah. I, I think they're, I think they might be confusing, uh, Father Steven D. Young's channel name with Josiah Turnum's father. Oh, I, yeah, there you go. I guess I guess I am Father Josiah now.

>> I think that's what they're doing. They're confusing his channel name with Father Josiah Turnum's channel name.

>> That's funny.

>> Is he homosios with Father Josiah?

>> According to their shared humanity? I guess so.

>> That's funny. But yeah, I mean, in that, in that citation, that's so funny that they would share this as a, as a, this is a proof text for PSA or something. Symbol of the reconciliation of God to human beings through the incarnation. I mean, that's that's so, that's so blatantly not what he's talking about. He's talking about theosis. That's wild.

>> Yes. He's, he's connecting the feast to the incarnation, not to Christ's death in particular.

>> Right?

>> But these are the same people that will read Athanasius and they'll turn around and go, "Ah, PSA, you know," and, uh, you're like, "Where, where do you, where do you get that from?"

>> You know, well, it's just, I want it to be there. So, if I squint, turn my head, and,

>> you know, sneeze, maybe I'll find it. I mean, we could get into, we could get into more problems. Like the whole, the whole Christology, Trinitarian theology thing is the tip of the iceberg, right? I've also talked recently, and I know about, you know, just the fact that you never put sins on an animal and then sacrifice it.

>> It just literally never happens, right?

>> Uh, but let's do some more stuff, right? Like...

>> Not the, the Torah does not give the death penalty for every sin.

>> Right?

>> Yes. Oh, I forgot to change my name to Father Josiah. Forgive me.

>> You look different than the last time I saw you, Father Josiah.

>> Thanks for, thanks for hopping on FDA on the panel here. So now it's a party.

>> I'm so glad you... I've just been thinking about this the last, uh, week because I think, uh, and Father Bless and, uh, brothers, good to see you. Um, the people rise up. Have you noticed? It's, it's like demons, right? That just when you, you knock one down, uh, and they go away, they're mounting an attack. So whenever it gets silent, um, I'm always worried. I'm like, "They're coming. They're going to come back and the hordes."

>> And it did. And I think that's because Father did a recent thing and then, um, Dr. Nathan Jacobs did a wonderful kind of treatment on on this too, and I think it activates them or something, and then they all rise up again. So anyways, it's been on my mind. I'm glad that you're all talking about it.

>> Yeah.

>> I, I miss your, uh, I miss your, uh, daily show. I, I always tuned into that when I was when I was at work. I just played in the background.

>> Yeah.

>> You've been busy. Yeah, I'm teaching eight classes now. So...

>> Wow.

>> You mean you can't squeeze it in in between eight classes and serving two different parishes?

>> And being, yeah. And being clergy?

>> Yeah.

>> That's a lot.

>> Forgive me. But I really enjoy. I will get back to it. I promise. The morning prayers and stuff. So, forgive me.

>> Yeah. Those are, that, those were an excellent, an excellent show. I always, I always like tuning into that. I feel like, uh, refreshed, you know, after, uh, you know, tuning into that. But I'm, I'm glad you came on. Yeah, the, the Latinizers, they, they give you a hard time. Uh, Father Degan, I know they attacked you pretty crazy a little while ago. Uh, we were talking about that not too long ago. But now, Alex, uh, Alex Saurin seems like you now that you're on the scene, you've kind of riled them up again.

>> Alex, Alex is the scapegoat for me. You see, you see how I played that? He, he has taken on my punishment that's deserving and he's atoned and, uh, replaced me. Thank you, Alex, so much.

>> Also, my, my innocence was imputed onto you as well.

>> Oh, man.

>> So, doesn't, um, so we're talking about Latinizers taking quotes sometimes seems like AI generated. I don't know. I can't, I can't backtrack. At least the first quote, the second, the second quote pulled up some stuff. I didn't look into it as deep, but the first one I certainly couldn't find. But it seems like they're taking a bunch of quotes and pitting them against the councils themselves. Doesn't Black explicitly condemn PSA?

>> Yes.

>> I mean, not, it doesn't use the word PSA.

>> Right?

>> Yeah. So if that's what you mean by explicitly.

>> But it condemns imposing necessity on God,

>> which technically satisfaction theory does too.

>> Mhm.

>> Um, saying that God is somehow subservient to some standard of justice, like he can't forgive sins at all, really.

>> Yeah. At all, really.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I was going to say Sunday night somebody came into my chat and argued that exact same thing. And I just said, "So wait, mercy or forgiveness is literally foregoing the right to impose, uh, on a person that they have to pay you something, right? It's, it's the, uh, obeyance of pursuing a right against somebody. That's forgiveness. That's mercy. You're telling me God can't do that?" And the guy, to his credit, bit the bullet and he just said, "Yep, my God is incapable of forgiveness and mercy." To which, and in my heart, I guess I'm thinking, Lord have mercy.

>> Yeah. No, see, that's, that's your hardcore Calvinist, man. They just bite down and say like, "Sure, God's the author of evil. Why not? You know, you're like..."

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> "He is the source of death."

>> Yeah. But it's so, it's so weird in that world though, because you think that you're, you think that you're taking the high road and you're praising God, and you're not even aware of the fact that you're engaged in blasphemy. Like, you don't, you don't even see it. You, you're so twisted in darkness and deception that you are literally blaspheming God, but you think it's praise. It's really tragic. It's really tragic.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> Oh, I have a point. I just thought about this. I was just talking to my godson about, um, why am I blanking on? Is it St. Gregory on the life of Moses? Yeah, St. Gregory of Nyssa. Uh, I used this a while back, but it just came and it, it was dealing with something else, but it just came up recently. Uh, I made the connection with regards to this. But so St. Gregory of Nyssa is talking about, um, the, the scripture verse about, um, "no one can see the face of God and live." And he says, he's kind of polemically going through, well, how is that possible? How can looking upon the face of life itself ever be the cause of death? And then what he does is he explains that's not what it actually means. It means that the Lord is the leader. You always follow the leader, right? That is the pathway to life. And what he's saying is, but if you take an opposite direction, you don't follow the leader, you, it's a, it's a pathway towards death. Um, in other words, never face your leader, right? Follow. So, it was a different conversation. But then I realized something in terms of penal substitutionary atonement using, uh, St. Gregory's line. How can life itself ever be the cause of death? Because they want to, isn't that interesting? They want to actually say the punishment, right, which is death and separation of God is from life itself. Death comes from life. Um, just dawned on me last week, but I was just thinking about, uh, this text and I think that it's actually really good to bring up.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. On that same note, uh, Father, uh, when I was reading Genesis, I noticed, um, that I don't know if the technical term is a parallelism, but when it says, you know, "dying, you will die," but "sinning, you will die." It's, it's *muth muth*. Um, and, and how it equates sin with death. It's not, it's not life that brought it. It's, it's rejecting that life. And that's really what sin is, is it's a rejection of life and an embracing of death.

>> So, that's a great point. Yeah, that's a, that's called an infinitive absolute construction.

>> That's what I meant to say. Thank you.

>> It was on the tip of my tongue. It would have got there in 10 years.

>> Yeah. Reaching for it.

>> Infinitive absolute. Yeah, that was...

>> Got it.

>> That was exactly what I was going to say.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> So, yeah, I was, I was say with the right, the punishment for every sin in the Torah is not the death penalty,

>> right? If I steal $5, the punishment is I pay back $25, right? So, the, the punishments for violating the commandments of the Torah, uh, are all number one, corporeal punishments. Even if it's the death penalty, it's your corporeal death. Right? There's nothing in the Torah about hell. There's nothing in the Torah about eternal condemnation, right? Or going to heaven for that matter, right? Um, this is all this worldly stuff. And in fact, the way it's understood in the, in the later parts of the, the Hebrew Bible, in the Christian Old Testament, in second temple Jewish literature, is that when someone commits a sin that requires the death penalty, them accepting the death penalty, right? Being killed for it, right? That absolves them of that sin. They have now paid the price for that sin. So there is not some guilt going over into the afterlife in the understanding of the Torah, right?

>> Um, and so there's, there's an even more basic presupposition in Protestant theology that's required for PSA, and that is the presupposition that is found nowhere in scripture, that if someone keeps all the commandments of the Torah perfectly, they have earned eternal life. The Torah never says that, not once. What the Torah says in Deuteronomy when it talks about blessings and curses at the end is if you keep all these commandments to Israel, to whom they're given, because most of them were not even given to Gentiles. Gentiles were not called to keep kosher. Gentiles were never called to do huge swaths of the commandments. Right? If you keep all of these commandments, you will live a long life and have many children in the land. You will dwell in the land at peace. You will not be attacked by foreign invader. Right? That's the blessings. And the curses again aren't, you're going to burn in hell for all eternity. The curses in the Torah are, you're going to be cast out into exile, right? You're, you're going to have famine. You're going to be invaded. You're going to be, right? And this is, this is carried through to the New Testament. This is what St. Paul, I heard you, Alex, on Sunday. Uh, when you were arguing with Uncle Fester, I almost jumped in. I came like this close.

>> Um, but, uh, the, uh, when St. Paul talks about the curse of the law, he's not saying the law is a curse. He's saying the curse of the Torah, meaning the curses laid out in the Torah.

>> Because he's Jewish. He's an Israelite. He's looking around at the Romans oppressing them, right? And being in control of the land and being in control of the temple and being in control of all this. And he's saying, "This is because of our sins as a people. We received the Torah. We didn't keep it. So now we're under its curse." That's why it says in Galatians, "As many as are under the Torah are under its curse." So a Jewish person can't brag about having the Torah because it's like, yeah, you didn't keep it though.

>> And you're under the penalty for not having kept it. That's nothing to brag about to a Gentile.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. So, and part of what Christ says as the Messiah is free us from that curse. And so St. Paul is really going in deep for how Christ does that because the way St. Paul understands it, the way that Christ does that is not by politically overthrowing the Romans at that time, right? And establishing a monarchy in the Levant, but it goes much farther than that, right? It fulfills that. But we're freed from that curse. And so the core problem here that blows up double imputation.

>> Yeah.

>> Because what they hold is imputed to the person who believes is not Christ's innocence. It's his perfect obedience to the Torah.

>> The law. Yeah.

>> And therefore, if that is imputed to you, you have now earned eternal life according to their theology. So, ironically enough, Protestantism requires a belief in justification by works of the law.

>> By works alone.

>> Which St. Paul says is not how you find salvation, right?

>> Yeah.

>> It just, so they agree, Protestant theology agrees that you're saved by doing works of the law. They just say you're not capable of doing it perfectly, so Christ did it for you. Christ earned it for you through him keeping the works of the law, right?

>> Um, and so once you point out that that's nowhere in scripture, that's not a promise for keeping the Torah, nor a threat for violating it, then double imputation falls apart. People substitutionary atonement doesn't work. Right? So Christ paid the price for all my sins. He, he gave the guy the $25 who I stole $5 from. That doesn't make any sense.

>> You should, you should write an article and then title it, "Protestant Work Ethics."

>> I'm writing a book on atonement right now and this is going to be in there in a chapter.

>> I think that's really important though, because that, that really discounts like, that, that Christ is a divine person. It's really like, well, yeah, he's incarnate and he's like, he's the Logos, he's God of God, light of light. But really, it's the fact that he kept the Torah perfectly. That's why he can go and like bring us from captivity to life, right? I, I think that's such a, a good point to make, especially like, because Christ is the Passover lamb, right? And Passover celebrates the movement from slavery and captivity to freedom and the promised land. In the same way, it's kind of what the atonement does where we're in captivity to death and the bad guys, the rulers of the age, and then Christ moves us to, you know, his kingdom, the kingdom of God, freedom.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, the, the, yeah. The whole, the whole thing just, it, it becomes incoherent if you actually read the Bible. It's a perfect logical system if you don't ever try to match it up with the Bible. And if you read, if you read Romans the way, uh, St. Cyril of Alexandria does, which is historically, and the way St. John does in terms of his application of it. So, St. John Chrysostom was very clear. His major theme, if you read all of his homilies on Romans, is that because we now have the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is able to keep the righteous demands of the Torah on us, right? In and through us with our cooperation, right? And, and that is how we work out salvation,

>> right? And so it's not substitutionary, right? It's the work of the Holy Spirit, right? And that's the contrast. That's how he understands the contrast St. Paul is making between the spirit and the letter, right? He's saying, in, in, you know, the first, the first go-around, the Israelites, his people tried to just keep the Torah and they failed miserably. And then the promises in Jeremiah 31, if you're reading the Hebrew, right, and in Ezekiel about the new covenant is that the Holy Spirit is going to come and indwell God's people and write the Torah in their hearts and is going to keep the Torah internally. And so St. Paul is arguing, according to St. John, that, uh, that that is now true, right? When we're baptized and we receive the Holy Spirit, that is now true. That possibility is now opened up to us. Right? And this then dovetails with how St. Paul understands the fruit of the spirit. This is why in Romans he says, "The one who loves keeps the whole Torah." Right? And why when he lists the fruit of the spirit, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. "Against such things there is no law." Right? Because if you are manifesting all of those fruit of the spirit working in your life, you are keeping the whole Torah, right? Truly keeping it, right? Not just the letters and the details and the legalistic, right, kind of thing.

>> But that's obviated by penal substitution because in penal substitution, I don't have to do anything about my sins. Christ was punished for them. So repentance is obviated. The idea of me trying to keep commandments is obviated. Right? Why would I do that? In fact, if I do that, aren't I trying to earn my own salvation and thereby rejecting Christ, according to their view?

>> And so all of the calls to repent that we get from Christ and from the apostles don't make any sense in pedal substitution. I mean, from their anthropology all the way to their Christology, it's just passive observance. You're just, you know, I, I was created a sinner or made a sinner, however they want to word it. I've got the imputed guilt of Adam. You know, I was, I was damned and and guilty the moment I came into existence just simply for existing. It wasn't me, Lord, but the nature thou hast given me. Kind of recreating Adam with blaming Eve and and Eden. And so their sin is a natural byproduct of the way that they were created. You know, I was just made this way and you decreed all of this, and then you go and you save me by way of this this penalty, and only for, you know, the elect, if you're going to be a consistent adherent. And, um, it's just complete and total passivity both in your culpability and your guilt, as well as in your redemption. It requires nothing of you. You're just either going to be elect to be saved or elect to be damned. And what do I do? What do I do with that? Well, I just, well, I guess I got to wait and find out, you know.

>> And it's Manichaean, too.

>> Oh, yeah. They talk about a sin nature. Well, at the same time, um, remember all of this is premised, if you go back to to Calvin, and it looks like Luther was influenced, sometimes he kind of had more of it, uh, than in other times in his life. But for certainly for Calvin, who's really the one who, uh, comes up with this theory, it's all premised on nominalism. If you don't know, so for those in in on the YouTube, nominalism is the rejection of what's called, uh, essentialism. That there are actual immaterial essences and forms, which we have one, right, a human nature. Um, and this comes about from William of Ockham, who supposedly in an attempt to be pious, piously answer the question of whether God can make a rock bigger than he can lift. He says, "Well, this isn't a problem if, uh, there aren't natures in real essences." Um, so to protect that, he comes up with this crazy awful theory called nominalism, which invades, uh, medieval Europe in philosophy and, uh, gez, it's the predominant theory even today in philosophy of nominalism. But obviously Calvin inherits this, adopts this. Now, what does this mean? If you don't actually have a human nature, what does it mean for Christ to assume a human nature? If there isn't a human nature that can be assumed in all of universal humanity saved, well, then of course it's cashed out all legally, right? As, as Father was saying, in terms of works, right? And it's the name and imputed righteousness. It's the righteousness in terms of of a forensic legal status. So notice it switches from an ontological category to a statutory legal category. And this happens also, interesting enough, in logic, uh, and philosophy of language with the acceptance of nominalism too. It's all cashed out in the same way. And so Calvin basically has this idea that therefore, um, and of course, it seems like he's being influenced, I don't know what you think, Father, by obviously in some small sense, it's not identical, but Anselm's ransom theory from, "Why God Became Man," some elements of that in there, it seems like...

>> It develops out of that.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> It's, it's...

>> Taking it, it's adding an additional step to satisfaction.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah.

>> So man's infinitely guilty, right? So this has to be cashed out, um, in terms of a legal status that is imputed upon you. Um, all that's because, uh, largely in part because of nominalism. So I often tell people, well, we can just cut this out right away. Um, that St. Paul's talking about it because nominalism didn't exist in the first century. So let's just stop talking about PSA being in, in, in Romans and St. Paul's epistles and stuff like that, because it's premised on a philosophical error of nominalism.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. That's the, that's where they get the language of being declared righteous.

>> Yes. And Luther said that too. You're...

>> Snow-covered dung heap.

>> Um...

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> Is basically...

>> You look clean and white, but you're still a pile of crap. Yeah.

>> Yeah. That's...

>> I got into a a recent discussion with a a Calvinist on that very same thing and I said, "Don't you understand under your, uh, sociological model, you just have perfume on dogmas." Like, you're not actually being transformed. There's there's no renewal or or restoration or healing. And oh, the offense, the pearls that were clutched that day. Uh, but, but that really is that really is the case. There's there's no transformation because there's no unity with Christ. It's, it's just, it's tragic.

>> Yeah. The, the, and that's, by the way, the, the whole Romans 8 thing. This is the issue with, we, I talked about this on Alex's channel briefly from another direction in a little debate review piece, right? That in terms of the quote-unquote golden chain of redemption, where there these steps, right? Um, which, uh, the point of saying that there's nothing in the text that implies a temporal sequence is that they want to read this as, okay, justification means you're declared to be righteous. Sanctification then means you vaguely become more holy over the course of your life. Although don't push that too much.

>> Don't try. And then glorification is something that happens after you die and go to heaven. And then we don't deny the bodily resurrection, but we don't talk about it either.

>> Um, so, and the fact there's no temporal sequence, right? This is, this is really very simple, right? If you just read the words, so God makes you righteous, he makes you holy, he shares his glory with you, right? These are all aspects of theosis, right? These are all energies of God, right? Righteousness or justice, holiness, right? His glory, right, in which we come to share in salvation. So, this is listing these different aspects. It's not setting up like, okay, here's step one to getting saved, and then here's step two, and then here's step three.

>> Um, and by the way, even though these words are all the exact same verbal forms in Greek, one of them is a one-time event that happens at the beginning, the other one is a process that happens over your whole life, and the third one is in the future, right? Like the, there's nothing.

>> You have to read the right presuppositions into it. That's...

>> Right. That's exactly it. You have to show up...

>> With that in your head.

>> Yep.

>> Right. In order to get it. And that's, and that's such an important point because a lot of times when you talk to even Protestants, right, and you're discussing things like Soliday, and they try to cite Clement of Rome, the real, the real difference isn't the word faith alone being used. It's imputed versus infused righteousness. So, I mean, it seems like in order to hold to PSA, you would have to hold to, right, an imputed righteousness form, which even Protestant scholars will admit did not exist in the first thousand years of the church.

>> So, it just, I mean, it shows that they're engaging in word-concept fallacies when, uh, when they try to, you know, say that this is the orthodox view and take a, take a citation that maybe uses words that they think because of their presuppositions mean one thing, but actually are intended in another way.

>> Yeah. And the, the dialogue of the father, the father doctors going back and forth here, uh, kind of got me thinking of like, the downstream effects of, uh, that paradigm are pretty catastrophic. Because I, I think about like, we've been going through First Corinthians in, uh, in our parish Bible study, and, uh, I think it's in chapter 3 where St. Paul talks about like, you being a temple of the Holy Spirit, and that you shouldn't defile your body because you're defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit, which, like, temple defilers were like next to PDF files and like the lowest of the low in that kind of culture. And I think, well, if that's just a legal imputation, you're not actually a temple of the Holy Spirit, then like, really, who cares what you do with your body?

>> And Christ already died for it.

>> Yeah.

>> So, as Luther said, "Sin boldly." Right? Have you ever read that sermon of his?

>> No. You got to tell a good lusty lie every now and then to...

>> Yeah. He says to the devil, "You start to feel conviction."

>> Yeah. "Christ died for actual sins," he says, "not potential ones. So go live your life and don't worry about it."

>> You try to fart away the devil.

>> But yeah, and, and by the way, if someone asks, "Well, what is justification then?" Okay. Uh, here's the simple explanation because this is the other place where we use the word justified all the time in our modern world in a word document. Right? If something is left justified, that means it's lined up on the left side.

>> It's right justified, it's lined up on the right side. If it's full justified, it's lined up...

>> On both sides completely.

>> Which is the ideal setting. So justice, what justice means in scripture is that everything is in its proper place functioning together in harmony. Injustice is when that gets disrupted. Judging is putting it back in order. Okay? And so when God justifies us, he's putting us back in order. That was one of the first things in Alistair McGrath's book that really like blew my mind. And that's like right at the beginning, too, where he's like, "Let's talk about this term justification." And, uh, *dikaiosune* and there's an equivalent in Hebrew, but he was talking about *sedaka*, this concept...

>> It's *sedaka*.

>> Well, *sedaka* and...

>> Well, there's somebody who just read the term in a book. How, how's it pronounced again?

>> *Sedaka*.

>> *Sedaka*.

>> Like, I think Melchizedek.

>> Ah, that's a good...

>> *Sedak* in there is the same word.

>> Yes. But he's talking about how that *sedaka* is the proper state of affairs and that, like, this idea of retributive justice of giving, like, everyone their due, that's like not the justice scheme you see in the Old Testament at all. Why on earth would that be the one that you see in the New Testament?

>> Yeah. If you want a good biblical evidence of this in Daniel, right, when it's talking about the abomination of desolation, it says that the temple will remain desolate until the day that it is justified, right? So there's no way that could be declared not guilty because it's talking about the physical building of the temple.

>> Right.

>> Right.

>> So, it clearly there means what? Put back in order.

>> Y...

>> Right. Rededicated, reconsecrated. Right.

>> That's part of the problem with atonement, too. On the day of atonement, you use the blood. You don't put the blood on people,

>> to purify them of their sins. You put it on a bunch of inanimate objects. Right? So,

>> I guess the altar committed a bunch of sins over the course of the last year, like the, the, the incense altar and the table of the showbread just got up to all these sins and we need to atone for them. That's the language in Leviticus 16. It says to make atonement for the altar. To make atonement for the table.

>> It's a good word.

>> Interesting. Yeah. There's a lot of, um, that's that's interesting. Yeah, I'll have to, I'll have to chew on that a bit. I feel like you just dropped a nuke. Everybody's just kind of like shell-shocked. It's like, okay, wow. I, even people in the chat are just like, wow. But I, I've noticed, I've noticed this a lot of downstream effects from accepting, accepting PSA. It's in direct contradiction to theosis. So, I don't understand how Latinizers can even like half affirm this. Even if there were a million and one quotes that kind of sort of sound like something that they're going to twist, right? Because it's, it's antithetical to the rest of our theology. I mean, but isn't that kind of the nature of quote mining anyway? You're taking just a piece and then you're disregarding the entire system,

>> right? And that's what they do. That's why I never do that.

>> They couple affirmative times I tried. You make an argument to them and they respond by posting another wall of text meme.

>> Yeah.

>> Yes. And it's like, that's not addressing what I said.

>> It doesn't. I think it's St. Irenaeus. Forgive me if I get this wrong. He says the heretic takes the original pieces of the mosaic and rearranges the picture.

>> Yeah.

>> Right? So the picture of Christ and makes a picture of a dog. Yeah.

>> Yeah. That's, that's exactly, um, what they're doing is that they're taking the pieces.

>> Because we're Catholic. Each piece only means what it means in terms of the whole, right? That's why we understand it through the entire corpus of the fathers, the life of the church, the councils. What they're doing is exactly what the heretics do. They take a piece, piece, and absolutize it as if it were the whole, and then reconstruct a different picture that does not match the catolos.

>> And there's something similar in, uh, we were going over in logic. I was saying that a fallacy is not simply getting something wrong. It's an illusion. It's like a magic trick. It's taking, this is how I've defined, uh, a fallacy is taking a bad argument and making it look good. And isn't there, so it, it is something wrong. It's something, it doesn't follow. But there's a type of an illusion there that's done. And I notice a parallel with this too, is look, but I'm with the fathers. You're not against the fathers, are you? I mean, are you more holy than the saint?

>> And you, so and so.

>> Yeah. All of this is, uh, sleight of hand and magic trick stuff.

>> Yeah.

>> And, Father, that's why I don't engage with it too. It's sorcery. It's semantical sorcery, and I don't want anything to do with it.

>> Well, you also, I mean, look at the, look at the downstream effects in their spiritual life as well. Uh, a lot of the Latinizers end up committing apostasy. I mean, I'm going to, I'm going to go through an an old interview that I did with, uh, Joshua Shuping. But I remember his reason, his main reason, number one thing that he said in the interview that I had with him back when I was a Protestant. He said, "The number one reason that I left, uh, the Orthodox Church is because I told them the fathers affirmed PSA, and they told me, 'No, they don't,' and also the Orthodox Church doesn't." So, he was butting his head up against the wall with this, and then eventually it led to, it led to his apostasy, which is horrible. I'm not, not making fun of him at all, but, uh, you know, this is, it's dangerous spiritually.

>> No one, no one told him we believed that.

>> No one did.

>> I'm go... You know what? I don't care. I've had enough of him being an enemy of Christ's Church. Okay. Um, he went to seminary. He was sent by one bishop. That bishop refused to ordain him. He went bishop shopping. Found a bishop who didn't know who he was, who ordained him. He spent the entire short time he was a priest posting things online arguing that the Orthodox Church taught PSA, double imputation, all this stuff. Me, Father Joseph Lucas, Perry Robinson, other people all argued with him and pointed out that we don't. And apparently finally accepted that, finally it got through to him that he didn't, and, and he left for pastures greener that actually agree with him. Although, you know, there's other factors there too in terms of, you know, hey, if people are going to call you a grifter, Ben, uh, church he's in now pays a lot more than the Orthodox church he was serving.

>> Yeah.

>> So, yeah. Uh, I've had enough of being nice about him, right? He's, he's a foe of Christ's Church. He has made himself an enemy, actively trying to dissuade people from coming to Christ's Church.

>> I'm not going to carry water for him anymore.

>> Right. Yeah.

>> That's who he is. Okay. That's what he did. There's no. And calling himself a former Orthodox priest is kind of a sick joke.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Frankly.

>> Ironically, his, um, his interview that he did with me back when I was a Protestant was one of the, one of the key things that started to get me to think about, because the arguments were so bad, and I was like, if this is like, you know, considered a good defense from the Protestant side, then our side is doing abysmal. This was like a thread that I started to pull even as a Protestant. And I would ask him, you know, because he became, um, he became a Lutheran, uh, pastor. And I would ask him about, well, what about like the *crux theologiae*? The whole explanation was basically just, well, it's a, you know, it's a mystery. We don't really understand how God operates, and we don't understand how ABC123. I'm like, that's not really answering how that's not a contradiction to say you're predestined to heaven but not to hell, so on and so forth, and all these, because this is something that you have to believe as a Lutheran. So, I mean, there were several different answers that he gave me that just kind of were like, this just sounds like a load. I don't know.

>> Yeah. So, I mean, I, I've said enough about him.

>> Well, you know,

>> I don't know how much more there is to say.

>> Yeah.

>> Here's a question. Um...

>> I call it *solar patristica* where, um, you know, it's just me and...

And my father's, um, and I can just read by myself. Um, there, by the way, I'm going to quote Father Russ, who I serve with. There's one thing you can do by yourself. It's go to hell. That's that's what you do by yourself. Um, we're saved together in a community. Um, we're baptized. Uh, it's so great to see that, you know, when we're doing, um, have you renounced Satan? I've renounced Satan. Do you unite yourself to Christ? Unite. Like everybody's there as witnesses. We're all saying like this together. We're being saved together. The only thing you can do by yourself is go to hell.

And this is what these pe these kids are doing reading this stuff. So then the question of the same question we applied to Protestants. So I'm moving from the epistemic category into the normative, uh, normative category, uh, the legal category. So, okay, we have two, um, online ortho people, um, reading the petristics. And they have two different interpretations of this. How is it legally settled? That's what I want to ask these. One person's reading it one way, the other. What is what's the solution? Like, what do they say? Because they actually seem to be anti-hierarchical, um, and they seem exactly like Protestants, right? I am my own normative authority. But you, ep, let's suppose you epistemically get it right. That's different than being legally binding your conscience. Well, all the bishop and priests, they're all, what do they call us? Modernists, which is crazy because they're actually modernists.

Yeah. Yes. These are modern. You accuse your opponent the thing that you are and you're doing, which is another sorcery trick, too. And I'm like, no, you can't get away with that. So, wait a minute.

It's a textbook. Sorry to interrupt, but it's a textbook Alinsky tactic, actually. Yeah. That's what I always point out on my congratulations, your Saul Alinsky tactic.

Yeah. Because they're distractions, right? I always tell my student, um, in logic class, this is the classic, uh, the one who smelt it, dealt it from grade school fallacy. We all know this one. It's just gotten a little bit more complicated. Um, but what are they going to say to that, Father, that? So is this? Oh, it's the catacomb churches, right? I'm the last true genuine Orthodox left on. And I obviously have to, I, I am the authority now. I'm the bishop. Let's just give them my right and they will legally bind on this. But I'd seriously like to ask him this question. How do you think this is ecclesially and legally resolved? Which is a different question than did I get the right answer or not?

Yeah. Yeah. We we've done a couple episodes on Lord of Spirits recently about obedience, and that's the most pushback we ever get, and it's from Orthodox people or at least people in the Orthodox church. And it's black and white there, you know, they'll bring up stuff.

What if? Oh, it's crazy. Yeah. What if my spiritual father tells me to murder someone, right? Like we're all running assassin guilds. Don't do that, by the way, right? Like.

Yeah. No, I, I've started tell. I rob. Yeah. St. Silad said God only punishes sin once. So if your spiritual father tells you to kill someone, go do it. Your spiritual father will go to hell for murder, not you. And then they just stare at me. But, but yeah, we get all just this huge wish. And it's always it's always like, well, what about St. Maximus? What about St. Steven the New? Right? Their bishops were heretical and they disobeyed. Here's the point. They were saints first.

Yeah. I was just going to say, when you get to their half that status, you come talk to me. They weren't saints be they didn't become saints by judging their bishops to be heretical and opposing them. They became saints and were so deeply right in their relationship with God that they understood heresy when they saw it. They opposed it and they accepted grave consequences for having stood up to their bishops. I don't care what you're talking. St. Nectarios, right? St. Maximus had his tongue cut out and his hand cut off. St. Steven was martyred, right? Like you could go through these, right? None of these keyboard warriors, number one, are saints, right? Number two, are willing to accept any kind of consequences for anything, right? They're just going to decide, oh, uh, this this bishop wants to, you know, crisismate me instead of baptize me, so he's clearly a modernist. I'm going to go to the parish on the other side of town. Oh, no. Well, this guy, he doesn't believe in PSA, so I'm going to go join the Genuine Orthodox Church of this guy's garage 60 miles from here, right? Like that's not hardship, man. That's not accepting hardship. That's not being a saint, right? That's being a Protestant church shopper, right? Who like, you know, is trying to find somebody who agrees with you and then you'll submit to the quote unquote submit to their authority as long as they agree with you about everything.

And by the way, Father, you know how we know this? So as clergy, our primary duty is to care for people's souls. So when I have these people writing me and they want to engage in argumentation, um, I said, "No, I'm not going to do it." What I can actually see is you're you're in extreme spiritual danger. Um, you're in prestig, you have this pride, you're reading, doing all this stuff by yourself. Now, if you remember, and I always quote the story of, um, in Elder Thaddius's book, Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives, where there's a story about this novice monk and, uh, a noetic being appears to him and and tells him what he's so smart and that the things he could do with his intellect, but alas, you know, you're spending all your time praying. Let's make a deal. I'll do the prayers for you. You can do all the philosophy reading and reading all these books and change the world. And he engages in this and then tells his abbott at some point brings this up and he says, "Well, wait, what? You were talking to a noetic being that told you to stop praying and you thought that was a good idea?" He loses his mind. And there's something always with the demons, right? This, uh, kind of a mustafian like kind of deal with the devil is it's a trick. They promise you freedom, they enslave you. They promise you that you'll use your mind. Many of these people involved in the cult lost their minds, couldn't speak. That happens the same thing. And so I'm seeing this with, um, these young people that it's a trick of the devil, right? You're doing it by yourself. Um, and you're going to lose your mind if not your soul if you. And Cle, as, uh, you pointed out, how many of these people have apostatized?

And we can see this. So I, I try to care for that. And I asked them, "Does your priest know that you believe this?" And and, oh, my priest has given me the blessing to teach this. I'm like, "Really?" So he's made the catechesis at 17 years old in your church and your crisis oil still wet on your forehead. What's your priest's name? Right. I'm not trying to get them in trouble. I'm actually caring for them and I'd like to have a conversation with their priest. Do they ever give it to me? No. That's doxing.

So what they want is exactly what, uh, Father said. Um, I want to continue in my sin and I don't want to be held accountable and I'll just find somebody and I'll go somewhere else. And so it's hiding. And I think that's that says a lot. All of them are like this. I generally come to, I'm, I'm not here to bust you up and, um, apply penalties on you. Um, I actually want you to do well. And what do they do? They hide. They remain anonymous. We don't even know if these people are orthodox whatsoever. They. And so anyways, I just thought that was worth kind of bringing up because it ties into exactly what we saw with Father, uh, no longer, I should say, uh, we saw with Shupin.

Yeah. He was doing the same stuff. And what happened? Um, he lost his mind and he's not in the church and now he's an enemy of the church, which is always what happened. We had somebody, I even had, uh, editing some articles for Petristic Faith that wrote that, uh, from Orthobro to what was the name of the terrible slanderous.

Oh, saying that it was like too ethnic, but then not ethnic enough. And then, uh, bunch of like mean diorites, just like we, you see, we have this chamber up here of where we catch all these people and we just whip them, right? And just, um, I mean, it was just ridiculous, like the the slander. Uh, actually, it's as a lawyer, you know, it's not slander, it's liable. When it's written, it's liable.

Written. Yes. Um, and guess what? That guy went straight into ecumenism, skittle stuff. And I'm like, you can see it happening every time. Like, why are we crazy ones for saying you're in danger? I don't understand how you can grow spiritually if you are accepting positions and trying to assert positions that are contrary to what the church teaches. It just seems like you're putting yourself in, you're putting yourself in opposition to, if you're putting yourself in opposition to like your bishops, your priests, everybody. Doesn't that just seem like, I mean, you're kind of just fighting with yourself instead of growing with God? I can't, I can't picture. I can't picture myself coming in as a as a catechumen and during my entire catechesis, I'm just thinking, oh, my priest is a modernist, my bishop is a modernist, oh, everybody at my church, they just don't understand. I have the esoteric knowledge, I have the secret knowledge, they don't get it. Right? That's the opposite of of acquiring humility, right? I mean, I, that would drive me insane if that was my, if that was my position coming into the church, you know what I mean? So I, I can't, I can't even picture it.

I, I think I think a lot of it is grounded in a misunderstanding of the hierarchical nature of reality and also the church, right? Um, a lot of these guys talk about hierarchy and patriarchy and stuff, and frankly, what they mean is they want to boss a woman around. And I say a woman, not their wife, because they're usually not married. Um, because if they were married, they'd talk like that in hush tones. Um, but right, because they they believe in hierarchy and patriarchy, but they're placing themselves at the top of it. Right? I, there are people out there who I want to submit to me and to my desires. And that's not what hierarchy is and how it works in the way God created the world and the way God set up the church. Way hierarchy works is number one, none of us are on the top of it. Patriarch Bartholomew is not even at the top of it. Okay? The, there is no human who is at the top of it. Right? Everyone has someone above us, right? Someone in authority over us, >> who we are responsible to, right? And most of us have some people below us who we have responsibilities for. That's how hierarchy works. And that includes in a family, right? Patriarchy and hierarchy within a family means, right, I'm accountable to the people above me in the family. Think Moses and Jethro, right? I am accountable and responsible to them, to the people above me in the family. And there are people like my wife, children, if you have them, who I'm responsible for.

As a priest, I have a bishop who is above me, right? And my job is to represent him in the parish, right? And I have parishioners who are below me in the hierarchy who I am responsible for. I am responsible for them. I'm not the boss of them. I'm not one of the rulers of the Gentiles who lords it over them. Right? I, I am responsible for them. On the day of judgment, I have to give an account for each and every one of them to Christ, not just myself. In my family, I have to give an account for my wife on the day of judgment. Right? My parents will have to give an account for me. My bishop will have to give an account for me and the rest of his clergy. Right? That, that's how hierarchy works. And so finding your place in the church is finding your place in that hierarchy when you're being catechized, right? And brought into the church. Who is it who is above me? My spiritual father, to whom I am responsible. And then who are the people below me? Like the children in the church who I might be helping to educate, >> or at least being a model for or a mentor for, right? Who and I have a responsibility for them.

Yeah, I think I think this is such a like a lot of my audience are, you know, catechumens, inquirers, and things like this. I mean, for me, this seems to be one of the key things that we need to be learning and and and should be, I mean, we are being taught this, but people need to accept that submission, submission to those who are in authority over you isn't submission if it's only when you agree with them.

Yeah. Right. It's not submission at all when you agree with them.

Exactly. You're still just doing what you want. Yeah.

So if, so, if you're, if you're submitting to the authorities above you, that entails when you disagree with them, you are submitting to them, >> right? That I have the humility to say, "This person may be wiser than me. >> I'm going to trust their judgment, not my own." And it doesn't mean you can't have a dialogue. This is what we mean by consiliarism, right?

Is, um, you can ask my wife, um, I'm the head of the household. She and I primarily try to do, if I have to speak, it means I've done something wrong, but I try to lead by virtue, like I don't have to say anything. Um, but she's my counselor too. You know, you have, I, I like saying that because she, she was a lawyer at one point in time, but that's concealed, like I listen to her. A priest listens to his parish council and parishioners, but the proper way is they trust him. They can ask questions, right? They can, but at the end of the day, they trust him. I just, as the father of a household, I trust you to make the decision and I may not like it. I'm ask, like, you know how many times, you know, with my spiritual father's done stuff that I didn't like, and I'm like, I, I'm gonna be obedient and I was blessed because of it too. Um, and through that obedience too, you learn to trust the person more who's the leader, right? It's like I don't even question my spiritual father at all anymore. But, you know, the first years that I had him, I was like, that doesn't sound right. But you're obedient and you're blessed through that. You let the leader lead, which goes back full circle to St. Gregor of, uh, N says, quote, it's never good to face your guide. Follow, >> follow the Lord, follow your hierarchs. As you're talking about submission, I'm immediately thinking of love too, because if I disagree with you, and I, but I trust that you love me and I love you enough, then I can, I can let love work through whichever one of us is an error, and I can let love work, and I can submit to that process, and I can submit, and I can say, well, this person loves me, so because of that, I'm going to submit. I love them, so therefore I'm going to submit. And, uh, if love is that driving factor, then it's not necessarily about, well, I have to prove that I'm right or I have to prove that they're wrong, but it's, you know, I'm going to serve them as Christ would have me to serve them in this moment. I'm going to trust, uh, in them, and I'm going to, I'm going to love them. And, um, and I think that humility, uh, working through love will will help work that out. And a lot of times you find that you're talking past the person that you're engaged with because, you know, there's communication issues, there's same vocabulary, different definitions, there's perspective. And, um, if all we're focused on is about proving the other person wrong, then submission becomes all about me. And it's not about me submitting. It's about me forcing you to submit. But, um, I think if you, if you go into this and you go, look, I may not always agree with you, but I'm going to follow my savior and I'm going to wash your feet in this, and the Lord is going to use this to heal me in those areas where I'm broken and I'm rebellious and I'm stubborn, and it's going to be transformative in my life, uh, through that submission process. But I think I think the driving factor needs to be, uh, understood as, as, as love and and being a servant in that. And I think that if, if you're trusting, you know, in the person that you're you're submitting to, it just, it just, I think it naturally flows.

Right. All right. So, we've been going for about two hours. I want to, um, I want to pull through some of these super chats if that's all right. We'll we'll start doing some of these reads. Some people.

Alex is here, Ben. Like two hours. These are rookie numbers, man.

That's right. Putting up rookie numbers. Seven hour live stream.

Five more to go. I try to get out and yet the people, they pull me back in. You know, I had a Mormon call in. We talked for like two hours.

By the way, that is the line from, uh, Godfather. I reckon.

Yes. Nice. Well, I would, I mean, I would go for, uh, I would go for a long time, but, you know, um, we're still fixing that our bedroom. It got flooded out. So, we just did redid the floors today. So, I'm sharing. My office is also doubling as our bedroom for the moment. So, my wife will want to come and go to sleep at some of it, but I can, I can go for. I'm not, I'm not even close to time limit yet. I just want to make sure we get to the super chats. Uh, because people are asking some questions in here. So, thank you for the super chat, Micah. $10. Uh, Hicks says, "At the end of the day, PSC, uh, PSA either leads to the heresies of monoenergism, modalism, notorianism in accordance with Jesus being damned on the cross."

True. No comments on that one. I think that's, I think that's one of the things that like Jay kind of kind of put me on when he pointed out that Calvinism is just like repackaged monoenergism. It's like, oh, whoa, >> hold on a minute there. That kind of changed things for me. Yeah, it is just repackaged monoenergism.

Well, I remember when I was a Protestant, Redeem Zoomer reached out to me after the, I don't know if it was after the, it was a while after the Jay debate, and we, he was going back over some of the arguments or something. I think it had gotten re-uploaded, and he asked me, he's like, "Do you know a way to counter this argument that PSA, uh, you know, makes you historian?" He's like, "Because I can't think of a way." And I'm like, "I can't help you, buddy. There's nothing I can do to help you with that one. Sorry."

The thing is, like naturisters don't get damned, right? People get damned. So, he's kind of stuck.

Yeah, that's exactly right. Right. Um, sincere hypocrite, would part of the problem of PSA be that it presupposes the son beingos rather than eternally begotten? Would monarchy be impossible with PSA? So, I mean, Calvin, Calvin taught both those things. Um, but I, I think the reason he argues against the eternal generation of the son, um, is because so he's already working with a version of trinitarian dogma that's a distorted form of St. Augustine's trinitarian doctrine where essentially God is the divine essence and the the persons have been reduced to relations within the divine essence. And he, as usual, is approaching things from a a legal framework. And so he thinks that the early church condemnations of subordinationism means that none of the relations, since that's all the persons are, is relations, none of those relations can include anything that looks anything like subordinationism. And so I think that's what's motivating it, >> uh, to argue, uh, for, uh, autotheos. Now, I, I cannot give you a citation from his journal or something where he says that's why, but that seems to be,

Citation, please. Yeah. That seems that seems to be what he's doing when you, when you read him on the, the Trinity and where he makes this argument. Um, it's also interesting though that he has so robustly accepted the filioquay. >> He has no problem with the subordination of the spirit, >> even with as much emphasis as he puts on pneumatology, >> in the fourth edition of the institutes. Uh, he, that doesn't seem to catch him at all. But he thinks any whiff of subordinationism with the son is just ruled out. And so that's why he seems to make that argument. And making that argument also helps a little with the filioquay, um, in the sense that, uh, once you say the son's autotheos, you're you've got two gods anyway. So, I mean,

And remember, Father, that's what originally with the the Latins, why they came up with the filioquay is to, uh, before it had kind of got worked out to be really problematic, it wasn't clear what was being said was to combat, uh, Arianism.

Yeah. So there is a tie there, and they just kept kind of going further with it and then kind of making certain dogmatic stuff that it became kind of impossible to roll back. So it's no surprise to me that Calvin, with the tie of the filioquay, would have, and what else with the Latins too, they define, uh, the trinity persons entirely in terms of relations, relations of opposition too.

Yeah. Uh, in the Phil says, on my way from agnosticism to orthodoxy, PSA is my current struggle. Orthodox theology simultaneously makes sense and breaks my brain. Thanks all. That is some, that is something that I noticed, um, when I was a Protestant looking into orthodoxy. It does seem like, well, it doesn't seem, it is a complete coherent framework as opposed to, uh, in Protestant theology, it, especially as a non-denominational, it's a bit of, uh, it's a, it's a pick, it's a pick and choose and it's a readjusting your framework in opposition to literally all of history. Um, uh, for, for instance, you know, in order to have coherent, they, this is why you see Protestants do Mott and Bailey so often, and when they're, when they're pressed on things like this, like PSA, uh, they will backtrack spiritual death, they'll backtrack certain aspects when pressed on it. This is why when you talk to an Anglican, uh, their own, their own creeds will say, "Well, we affirm the anathemas." But if you talk to them in private, they'll say, "Ah, the Coptics, they're okay. Oh, you know, the, you know, these people are okay. Oh, well, these people are okay. You know, they've been through enough. I don't think that they're, you know, separated from the from the church, so on and so forth." But then in a debate, they'll say, "No, no, actually, they are. They're, you know, cut off, whatever." It's a, it's a complete change in what they actually believe based off of who they're speaking to. Orthodoxy, it's an entire framework. You don't have to do that. You don't have to engage in that kind of soapism. Um, so anyway, uh, Mr. Big Chops, $5. I know people who say Christ wasn't separated from the father. He takes the wrath of God in our place. Is that more satisfaction than PSA?

Well, no. That's you. You still have to have a separation, right? Um, and, you know, if they just want to use the wrath language, fine. Okay. If wrath, God's wrath is a divine energy, right? The Holy Trinity shares one.

Yeah. Right. And this is how you end up with like Vermigli arguing that Christ's divine nature was united with the father and the spirit in condemning Christ's human nature.

Right? That's how Vermigli uses essentially notorian christology to try to get around that problem. And then the problem is, if you condemn the human nature, it doesn't do anything because it's finite and created.

Right? Right. Which is the problem, right? Because then they'll try to then when they try to backtrack, like they were trying to backtrack into this satisfaction thing and they say, "Well, Christ only had to experience like a a couple seconds of eternal condemnation because of the value of his person." And it's like, "Well, wait, you just said it wasn't his person experiencing it. It was just his humanity. So, is his humanity different than ours?"

That's so true. Yeah. And they're like, "Well, no, we never said that. Where's the citation?" Yeah. Yeah. Give me Give me a citation explicitly saying I'm I'm historian. No. Stephen Steinh says, "I'm an inquirer coming out of 20 years of Calvinism." Glory to God. The hardest part of Calvinism was struggling to believe that God is good. And if you don't believe God is good, why serve him? That's a good point.

Yeah. Yeah. So God of Calvinism is basically the author of evil, right?

That's like, did you see Sprawl Jr.'s his quote where he said something along the lines of, um, this this girl that was, she was, uh, she was taken advantage of and killed. He said she deserved it or something like this. This was her sin that, you know, made her deserve it or something.

This was Warren covered Warren covered that a bit, but I, I use that as the the hook to my total depravity video where it's like, how did he get to this crazy conclusion, right?

Who says? Where does the Bible say that? Where does the Bible say that the punishment for sin is being sexually assaulted and murdered, >> right? That that is the just punishment for some sin that this girl committed.

Do you know what it reminds me of? It's, um, Buddhism says stuff like that. I kid you not. With karma.

Yeah. Yeah. That they brought upon themselves with their. Yeah, that's what it sounds like to me.

Well, you know what's interesting with the whole Buddhism thing? I used to, uh, I used to teach an apologetics class when I was a, uh, when I was a Protestant. We talk about, you know, pagan religions and all this stuff and how to answer their objections. A lot of the like Skittles community will will flock to Buddhism as like a lar, like a western LAR. It's a fake version of Buddhism, by the way, but they'll flock to it not understanding what the actual religion teaches. Uh, there are their versions of hell are called naracas, right? And they're they're temporary, obviously, but, uh, there's specifically a naraka for people of the Skittles community to go and get crushed by rocks until they are turned into jelly. So I don't think, I don't think it's quite as accepting as you as you guys.

Not only that, I found this up, uh, from a Buddhist, uh, on this issue said, you know, there's mon Buddhist monasteries. If they find somebody's skittle, they throw them off the cliffs to like help them in their, uh, karma. And that's a good dharmic thing to actually do is because they don't want them to increase negative karma. So they throw, they actually throw Skittles people off the cliffs. Like if that's the religion that you thought is Skittle be like, that's the one I want.

Yeah. Yikes. That's not that's not good. All right, let's see. Uh, cool dude. I'm living on soy this fast and have an overwhelming desire to buy Funko Pops. Please help. It's over, dude.

See, that's the problem, man. You went for the Pharisee food. You went for the Pharisee. You're not supposed to just buy the vegan versions of all the food you normally eat.

I learned that the hard way. I learned that the hard way. Not the letter.

Yeah. I, I learned that the hard way this Lent. I was like, uh, I need to, I need to up my protein intake. And I got these like, uh, like black bean soup, but it's like 25 grams of protein. It's all soy. I felt like I was dying after eating it. I'm like, "No more. I'm not doing this. This is just going to sit wasted in my in my cabinet. I'm not eating this anymore."

My, my wife's first Lent, she decided she wanted to to try and keep it real strictly. And she came home and the only thing she had in her house, this is while she was still a catacuman. The only thing she had in her house, uh, she put together and made a Brussels sprout burrito with the tortilla, refried beans, and Brussels sprouts because that's the only thing that met the fast. She said it was the most horrible thing she had ever eaten in her life. But that was what she had. My thing when my first Lent, I thought I was getting away with something. They had this mocha mix non-dairy ice cream and I was like, "Oh, this is going to be awesome." So mocha mix is like non-dairy creamer. And it was literally like eating big spoonfuls of non-dairy creamer. like it was just disgusting. And so I'm like, well, maybe this is aestheticism, maybe I should finish it.

That's it's very, it's a very aesthetic practice to eat just bioengineered swab foods.

Industrial waste. Lord have mercy. Uh, I did, there was one good hack a buddy at my church told me. It was, um, you know, instead of doing whey protein isolate, do a rice protein isolate. And it's not, it's not actually trash. It's a, you know, it's a, it's a decently made product that that's been saving me, I feel like. Um, as far as a protein.

I live in southern Louisiana now, so we just have a crawfish boil.

There you go. Nice. Uh, I don't know how to say this name, but thank you for the super chat. I had a Lutheran pastor teach me that in the parable of the wedding feast, Christ was the guest without a garment and was thrown out by the father.

Oh, are we doing bad Protestant sermons? I heard the greatest of all time.

Got it. I heard the greatest one of all time. But I'll be fair, and I'll, I'll tell you about the worst orthodox homily I ever heard, too. Uh, the, the worst proess I ever heard. It was a guy who was going through and preaching verse by verse, right? And so he comes to the first verse, he's going from the King James, of course, first verse of the parable of the good Samaritan. So he reads, "Now, a certain man was going down to Jericho." Says, "Brothers and sisters, we need to be certain in our faith." Well, he wasn't uncertain. It was a specific man. Certain. Now, the worst, to be fair to our Protestant friends, >> the worst I ever heard, I, I went to a little Greek church, uh, shortly after I was received into the church. They were having the church I normally attended wasn't having a weekday liturgy for the beheading of St. John the Forerunner, and this little Greek church was. So I went to the Greek church for that liturgy, and I went with some other people from my church. So this was like, I guess a record crowd for this little Greek church, right, on a weekday liturgy. And so the priest gets to the end of the liturgy and says, "Well, normally we don't have this many people. I feel like I should give a homily." And already, like, the danger signals are going off. I'm like, man, if you didn't prepare, don't, don't wing it, man. And so he starts telling the story of the heading of St. John the Baptist. And he says, "So now, you see, she is offered up to half of Herod's kingdom. And what does she do when she has to make this important decision? She goes and asks her mother. You children should go and ask your parents when you have to make important decisions. Be like her." And then he pauses, and it sets in what he just said, right?

Hold on a minute. Well, don't be like her in other ways.

But you should still ask your parents. And I was just like, "Oh, no. No, don't. Lord."

I filed that away. Don't, don't speak off the cuff. Yeah, I feel a sermon coming on. I gotta. He tries to, he tries to overcompensate, and he's like, "No, you need to hate your mother and father."

Yeah, Christ says that in another place. So, let's overcompensate.

That's awesome. Oh, that's hilarious. Uh, Stillgar, in understanding the energies of God, the context of the incarnate son, are all his actions understood as uncreated because the son is fully divine? Don't want to wrongly divide the two natures. Thank you.

No. There you go. We're not. We're not Maronites. Um, six ecumenical council. Christ has two energies. There's a human energy and a divine energy. Having a human nature gives you a human energy. So there are things that Christ does, like those things in which he accepts the blameless passions, like sleeping, right, because he is tired, or eating because he is hungry, right, um, that are his human energy, and then there are other things he does, like forgive sins, that are divine energies. Yeah, I like to say, like walking, human energy. Walking on water, divine energy. Good comparison. Uh, the truth in him. Warren, when are you coming home to the Eastern Orthodox Church? What's holding you back? We are waiting for you. God bless. You got some fans in the chat.

Well, you know, um, I appreciate, I appreciate the prayers and the encouragement. I do. I, um, I don't know, man. And I'm in a weird spot. So, I'm trying to exercise with, um, discernment and and make sure that, uh, I'm doing what the Lord wants me. Um, but, uh, yeah, I don't know. I may make an announcement if, if the time comes. I don't know. We'll see.

So, everybody keep keep them in the prayers. Absolutely. Um, violates the law of non-contradiction. Oh, they were probably sending this in about something we were saying earlier. Uh, Ben, when will you be received into the church? Date? I will, uh, receive that information probably this Saturday. So, uh, you know, if somebody asked me that question after this Saturday, then I will have an answer for you.

Now, I will say, I will say to answer your last question, Ben, and you just reminded me, I know, uh, one of the things that's that's holding me back from Orthodoxy, and I've had a lot of people ask me this. Shared this in private with Alex, and I think I can say it publicly here. Uh, I'm a major germaphobe. I don't eat after my kids. I don't drink after my kids. I was at an Orthodox sermon service, um, a couple weeks back, and there was a catechumen that had, uh, taken his first baptism, and I watched as they all shared the same spoon, and I realized that there was another objection that I had held. And I think it's a beautiful thing. I think that it shows the unity of of the church, and I understand why everybody does it. Um, but I was like, man, I told, I told Alex, I said, I don't, Lord, Lord help me. Like, if, if I had to go 350th, um, you know, that's the, the flesh of of Warren McGregor right there, just rising up, you know. So, that a lot of people think I have like really profound, um, doctrinal disagreements, and it's, it's so shallow and and trivial, but, but that's that's one I I feel like I can, I can share.

Let me help you. Yes. With the baby bird method of receiving communion.

Okay. Many priests actually prefer this as a mode of receiving communion. It's called the baby bird method because you kneel down a little, you tilt your head back, and just open your mouth, and the priest drops the gifts into your mouth. So your mouth never touches the spoon.

Yeah, I think I think I would prefer, I think I would definitely prefer the baby bird mode.

Most priests prefer that, um, as a mode. So if you do that, your priest will be 99, I'm 99.9% sure, totally happy with that as a mode of receiving communion. You do. There's one, one hurdle down, and and people people think I have these really deep, you know, the.

Line them up. I'll help you out here one after another.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I, I'll send you, I'll send you an email. We'll set up a time to talk. But, uh, I don't know. Maybe, maybe I'll start the catechumen process Sunday after this. Who knows? Um, amazing panel. I used to listen to Warren on my way out of Calvinism. I'm Eastern Orthodox now. Happy Lent. Huge respect. Love y'all. Thank you for the support. I appreciate that.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Pull that back up, Clip. He said he used to. O. Justin Mini, you're going on the block list, buddy. Hold on a second.

He said your old stuff was better. That's what he's saying.

Oh, is that what he said? Oof. Oof. Oof. I'm just getting so much love here. This is, this is that, uh, gentle rebuke of a brother, I guess.

What I'd pay for a Dr. Flowers ortho crossover.

I've been trying to get him to talk to me for a long time. I sent him your Sears catalog and and compliments and and I said, "Hey, listen, man. Like, you're getting, you're getting some compliments over here. You need to talk to to Father D Young, Steven D. Young over here."

Oh, sorry. He seems like any conversation you have with him, even in public, he just seems like an Israelite in whom there is no guile, right? Like he, like he is having an honest discussion with you.

No, he's very sincere. He's very like, he's, yeah, very sincere.

All the time, right? Agree, disagree, whatever. He's, he's just him. He's being honest, good faith. Um, yeah. So, um, there is an interesting person that's going to be, well, that will, that wants to come on the show. Have you guys heard of Aiden Mattis from Lore Lodge?

Yes. He's the Anglican Catholic.

Yeah, he's an Anglican guy and he's a Freemason. So he knows, he knows I do not like Freemasonry at all. I have been out very outspoken about the dangers of Freemasonry about enlightenment philosophy and all of this stuff. He sent me a message. He wants to come on the show to talk about because I said, I, I made a comment on X. I said, uh, enlightenment philosophy is not Christian morality. And he said, I want to, I want to have a conversation about that. So I have to, I'll find, um, if any of you want to join me in this discussion. And I told him I have to, you know, I'll have to speak to a priest and have a priest on if we're talking anything about theology. But if any one of you want to join me for this discussion, you're you're more than welcome.

You know, you think I'm too mean and you're going to invite Father Ron.

If you, if you want to join me, Stephen Young, you can come on. Absolutely. Um, but, uh, yeah, I think that'll be an interesting discussion. I, I can honestly say I have never had, at least that I know of, a Freemason on the channel ever. So.

At least one who admitted it.

Yes, exactly. Yeah. That I'm aware of. Well, that's kind of the weird thing, right? It's like, it's like, can you prove my secret society is actually subversive? Like, where's the where's the conversation, you know? Uh, I think it's going to have to be more of like a, why, why, why are you a Freemason? Why? Why? Like, even even if you were to honestly think like, oh, you know, I don't think Freemasonry is actually that bad. I don't think it's actually subversive. I think the alt of Indida is fake. I think all of these other things are fake. These other documents, no true Freemason type deal. Well, why even accept the mantle if you know this is what is thought of them and this is what they've stood for in history? If you were going to even reject every other form and say mine's just a like a barbecue club,

Why, why do you have an altar? Why do you have a.

Why are you taking oaths? Right? Like, can't just the men in your Anglican parish get together and have fellowship and barbecues?

I had, I had a viewer that, like a major conspiracy theorist that for the span of about six months was accusing me of being a Freemason. I was like, "No, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm not. Where are you getting this from?" And everywhere I went, he's like, "Warn admitted it. He's a Freemason." I was like, "What? Where did I admit it?" I'm no like explicit. No. Like,

I see you just said admit it. That means you are and you won't admit it.

Oh, no. Sometimes I'll, sometimes I'll do like a hand, like a, a hand over heart type of thing, and they're like, "Look, it's Mason symbols." You know, it's like.

I'm gonna start do start all my streams like this. You know.

How do you do the handshakes over like Zoom?

You can do the Charles Spurgeon. Uh, yeah.

Nice. That's funny. Um, I think one of the biggest issues with PSA is the moral language of condemnation surrounding Christ's sacrifice. They take on an ultra literal stance.

Sort of. But I mean, where do you see in any of the sacrifices of the Old Testament them like damning the animal to hell or even making it suffer?

Like inflicting suffering on an animal is a violation of the Torah.

Yeah. Right. So like when they killed the animal, they didn't like torture it. Like it's pain and suffering somehow.

Is expiatory. Somehow paid for the sin that it was being offered for, right? Like. There's no direct. This is a major problem with all of Roman Catholic theology is that there is this mechanic in Latin theology of sin and suffering where there's this quantitative relationship between the two, >> right? The the the punishment of a certain type of sin is a certain amount of suffering. And this goes across the board. It has to do with their the satisfaction view, their view of propitiation in general, the existence of purgatory, the super indulgence, uh, merits, which I call ethereal papist, bitcoin, you can store up.

Yeah. Well, yeah. The the idea comes as you have to analogy. >> Like, like Peter Lombard is trying to figure out how you get from okay, Christ dies for sins that gets to some people and not others. And so he kind of comes up with this idea of merits as a way to make that transactional, like, and it takes off from there. I listened to Father Steven D. Young's atonement episode of Lord of Spirits today. Mind blowing and beautiful. Stole something, kill a goat.

It could be that. There's also one called the priest shall make atonement back in the day that we did.

Um, it was part of a series on Old Testament sacrifices.

Interesting super chat here. Ortho Joe says, "Apologies for asking an off-topic question, but I'd like to ask Father Steven D. Young if the Donatist controversy would apply to the Catholic Church today. If so, does that mean they have valid sacraments?" I think I think what he's doing is he's conflating Augustine's text against Donatists and thinking that's like dogma or something, >> right? Yeah. So the outside of the church, man, like.

The reason the Orthodox church would say that they don't have the sacraments is not because of the moral turpitude of the clergy, of the Roman Catholic clergy, right? I mean, there's plenty of that, but there's plenty of moral turpitude of our clergy, too, right? Um, so that, that's not why, right? The, the reason why we say they don't is that they're in schism >> from the church. They're outside the communion of the church, right? Um, and so the, the Donatus, it was not an issue of, so that issue with Donatism was the reply of the church to the Donatists, stated reason for going into schism. They justified going into schism by saying that sacraments, uh, administered specifically by lapsi, by people who.

had repudiated the faith under persecution were not valid within the church. So they said the church's sacraments are not valid. Therefore, that justifies us going into schism and setting up our own parallel altars and administering our own sacraments.

Okay. Um, the church responds, first of all, no, that's not true, right? That the moral character of any individual clergyman within the church does not affect the validity of the sacraments they administer, right? And then part two, actually, your sacraments aren't valid because you're in schism, right, from from the church. And by the way, this is laid out in the confessions of Jo Josephus that to be able to consecrate, to be able to do, you know, minister the sacraments, you have to be under a a valid bishop, >> which is exactly why father has anti right the antimins is basically in place of the bishop. So >> if the bishop pulled your antimins, you're not going to be administering. >> Yeah. I can't do liturgy. >> And it's signed by the bishop. bishop. >> Why would though, and that's somebody who's in the church. I've always made this argument, why are those outside of the church, not under a bishop? Why would they have um more grace and a a prerogative to to administer when that doesn't even happen for those in the church, right?

>> That's a really good point. Really, really good point. Uh Ruy uh sends a super chat. Thank God for channels like this and that Latin is boring. So we had the blessing of knowing father Steven D. Young. >> That's a joke for my talk at Pou Fest. Uh when I was introd I I structured the talk the idea was I structured it around like Dante's Inferno and I said at the beginning we need someone to guide us on our journey and we don't want Virgil because Virgil is boring which got me a light smattering of disapproval. And then I said look, it's not Virgil's fault, it's because Latin is boring. And then a a a Roman Catholic priest there led a chorus of booze. He did the whole boo this man thing and they all booed me and I suggested we were going to use Nietze instead because Nietze, whatever else you want to say about him, is not boring. So that was my bit. But so the the reason for doing that bit here's some inside football on rhetoric, right? Uh, if you know anything about pro wrestling, right, pro wrestling, your goal as a professional wrestler, the people there all kind of know that this is scripted, right? That this isn't a real fight. These two guys don't really hate each other, right? But your goal is to get them to buy in anyway, right? To get them to root for the one guy and and against the other guy, right? And the way you do that is you could either work babyface or you could work heel. You could be the good guy or you could be the bad guy. Both work to get people involved.

>> Yeah. >> So I looked around at the PJO Fest crowd and I decided I'm going to get them to lock in. I'm going to work heel a little bit here at the beginning and get them all paying attention because they don't like me and then we'll go from there. Right. I feel like uh I feel like that same thing can work in uh well, I mean, it works anywhere that you use rhetoric, but YouTube as well, right? Like when I was a uh when I was a Protestant, I feel uh I would I would play I would play heel quite a bit to see who would engage with you know, the content or something. I'd make a I'd make a thumbnail and a title or I would make a title for like a YouTube short. It'd be like, the one question Roman Catholics can't answer. You know, they'd be like, "What?" And it's just like, you know, it's something something that would get them to engage with the with the uh the subject or something. But, uh, >> it's called a a logical honeypot. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You're busted. Hands up. >> Yeah. Exactly. Well, that's that's like when um uh when uh uh Jordan Cooper replied to Alex, I was like, "Yes, he engaged." Like, "This is a good even if it's bad, I feel like it's it's a good thing." You know what I mean?

>> Can I get Should I respond to that chat? Can I get some ones in the chat if you think I should to like put together an actual response? It was just so bad. I'll do chat. I'm at your mercy. >> All right. So, let us know. Should he do it? >> Do it. One's for yes, two for no. Let's find out. >> I'm sorry, man. I'm sorry. I had to >> Let's see what they say. Hold on. How do I How do I put this up on the There you go. Let's see. Once. Once for yes, two for no. Let's see. I pulled up the comments on the stage so you can see it's over. Your fate is sealed, Alex. >> My fate is It's It was determined before time of memorial that I would do this. This is why you don't choose democracy. >> I see my favorite uh profile on the side is there is a St. Gregory Tomales. He's my patron saint. Uh >> patron saint. Yes, >> your patron saint. >> Nice. That was a funny That was a funny stream. Who said that? What which Protestant guy said that? I don't remember. Was that Matt? >> Guy was burning an ESV, I think. >> ES. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. the guy that quoted the uh the College of the Apostles and thought it was actually a >> Oh, that was that's classic, too. >> Yeah, that that guy that was burning the ESVs, that is a wild account, but he he honestly I I watched some of his like more recent stuff. It's kind of boring. He just talks about work salvation over and over and over again. You got to get new material. If you're watching this, get new material. Be entertaining so I can at least laugh even though you're wrong. Okay.

>> Yeah. I don't want to be bored and you be wrong. >> Take lessons from Stephen Anderson. Kick your pulpit, you know, do some >> Yeah, that's what you need. >> That's why I liked having um that IFB pastor on. He was entertaining. >> He was more He was like way more funny in the back room though. I was like, "Ah, I wish you'd brought that energy to the live stream." Because in the back room he was like, "Yeah, you know, when I do my sermons, I just I picture myself as like a pro wrestler." And I'm like, yeah. I'm like this. I'm like, talk about this on the live stream. Like, let's go live. Bring that same in. And then it just didn't, you know, it was a good show. >> It was a good show, but I wanted some Hey men's in the the show. >> You need him to cut a promo. That's what you should have told him. >> That's That's right. I needed to I need to prep him. I'll bring him back on. I'll tell him he needs to This is going to be like >> I'm like a prompter. >> Got a promo on the Roman Catholics. Do it. Yeah. >> There you go. Uh, they confuse Christ Victor and words like debt punishment penalty to be legalistic and not purely an ontological result of the fall.

>> Yeah, most of the debt language is not really related to atonement. The debt language is related to Passover. Okay? Because what happens at Passover? Passover is about the manumission of slaves. Right. It's about people being set free from slavery. Sla we we don't understand this because when we think of slavery, we think of like the North Atlantic slave trade and cattle slavery, right? But slavery in the ancient world was a function of debt. >> You owed money to someone and so you sold yourself into servitude for a period of time, right? or you wanted something from them and didn't have any money, right? So like Jacob with Laban, right? He's saying, "I will go and I will work for you for so many years in return for your daughter's hand because I don't have a dowy, right, to pay you, right?" Um, and so the debt language and the remission of debt is talking about being set free from slavery, right? Not about that's not legal forensic language at all. >> More of a like a kinsman redeemer sort of. >> Right. Right. That's the redemption language. >> Yeah. >> Right. Comes comes from that. Right. Being being set free. So that's and that's what's going on with Christ tearing up the handwriting. It's usually the handwriting of the decree against us in a lot of the English translations, which is a Calvinist bias, right? Because decree makes it sound like a legal thing. The word in Greek is actually a word for a promisory note. It's a note of debt, right? And so Christ tears up the debt. And if we no longer owe the debt, now we're free, right? And so we're set free from sin to serve the living God. I didn't make that up. That's in the Bible.

>> Citation. You know what's crazy is that if they just read the Bible, they wouldn't have to come up with this like complicated double imputation model. Like it's just he's the Passover lamb. It says it like so many times. It like Paul says it, St. John the Forerunner says it. Like why are we trying to make some courtroom out of the atonement? >> Yeah. The the irony of the Protestant Reformation is that it absolutely was not focused on solos scriptor. and let's just go back to the Bible. >> Mhm. >> It took this whole Latin theological system it received and made some tweaks and adjustment readjustments and in a lot of cases there were issues that divided Latin western Europe throughout the Middle Ages where there were some people who held one view and other people held another view and Rome at Trent and Protestantism just line up one side or the other. Old Testament cannon being a perfect example. They were holding public debates about that in the 15th century. And then in the 16th century, Protestants took the one view and tren dogmatize the other. Right? Um, but there's a whole bunch of those. You read Thomas Aquinus, he says there's two main views on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And then he basically outlines transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Lutheran took custoiation, robe double down on transubstantiation. So there wasn't this sort of, hey, let's start from scratch with the Bible. Let's see what the Bible really says about atonement. Let's see what the Bible really says about sacrifice. Let's see what the Bible really says >> about faithfulness and keeping commandments. That's not what happened. It was just a bunch of tweaks to an already existing system. Uh oh, I missed this one. Uh, Father Bles, can you explain more about how in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ became sin, that refers to Christ being a sin offering?

>> Yeah. So, uh, the word sin and the word that's used for sin offering in Hebrew are the exact same word. It's exact same word. So when you're reading Leviticus, it'll say, right, when you make a you take a goat and you do da da da da. And if you just read that, it's like when if you if you sin, right? Right. Because it's the same word. And so, uh, you may have seen the clip somewhere, you may not, where I was talking to my Orthodox Jewish friend and, uh, I don't think in the clip you could see the chat because in the chat was a friend of his who I've also had discussions with, shall we say, uh, who uh, went to yeshiva. And as soon as I pointed that out, both of them back translated that verse into Hebrew in their heads. and realize in Hebrew there's a word play, right? He who knew no became a >> right for us. The one who knew no sin became a sin offering, right? Um, and it was a piece of evidence I used with them because they very much took this position that St. Paul wasn't even Jewish, >> right? That Jesus was Jewish and that St. Paul had come and done all these things because they had sort of accepted that Protestantism is what the what St. Paul taught, right? and came along and said, "No, actually, right." And so that was one of the things I used to help demonstrate to them that that St. Paul was actually Jewish that because he's there's Hebrew behind a lot of his behind a lot of his Greek. And as I've pointed out before, uh St. Sirill of Alexandria points this out in his commentary because St. Sirill u and uh Father Joseph Lucas is a good person to talk to about this. my friend Father Joseph Lucas because he's literally an expert on St. Ser like his dissertation is on sacrifice at St. Sirill right um but what what he has attested to also St. Sirill had a real lively and positive relationship with the huge Jewish community in Alexandria at the time. And so he still had access to a lot of Jewish contextual stuff surrounding the scriptures that people who lived in other parts of the empire where there wasn't a Jewish community wouldn't necessarily know about. And so when you read St. Serial's commentary. Um, if you read his commentary on Isa I recommend to everybody his commentary on Isaiah if you can find a copy of it. Holy Cross publishes it so it goes in and out in print all the time. But um, but he has access to a lot of this stuff and so uh has really good insights there because obviously he's St. Sirill and right he has this this contextual knowledge. Um, but yeah, so that's that's what's going there going on there. It's not talking about Christ having been somehow onlogically transformed into sin.

>> As if sin has an ontology. Anyway, >> you see, you see the same sort of argument being made from Galatians 3:13 with regard to the curse. you know, in Justin's uh dialogue with Trifo the Jew, Trifo was taking the PSA arguments that God cursed Jesus and showing that he wasn't the Messiah. And so along the same line, you know, if you're strictly following PSA, you disqualify Christ as Messiah. And Trifo demonstrates that. And then Justin comes in and is arguing against it. And a lot of PSA advocates will quote him out of context as though he's endorsing the thing he's refuting to prop up PSA. It's it's really wild. >> Yeah. Yeah. And Yeah. And so what's going on there with curse? You have to understand again how curse is used in the Torah. >> Right. So the fact that Christ comes into the postexpulsion for paradise world, right, means that he is by virtue of being in this world where there are thorns and thistles when you work the ground, right? Where there is sweat labor. He is accepting right voluntarily those effects the weakness of his physical body right the the pain and suffering that's inflicted on him right he voluntarily accepts all of those things right but um and even he's even living under the the curse of the Torah in the sense that right he's in Galilee he's in Judea the Romans are there right in charge they're they crucify am right. Um so but none of that see they hear the word curse. >> Yeah. >> And they immediately think >> oh that means God cursed him. >> Yeah. >> God put a curse on. They don't understand it in terms of the way the scriptures use curse, right? >> Yeah. >> Where and so the point St. Paul is making the point and this is where they get confused. Christ kept the Torah, lived the way you were supposed to, and so should have received the blessings of the Torah, right? But lived and accepted our lot, right, under under the curse, right? And that's what St. Paul says. But they're pressing into that, right? And making blessings, salvation, and curse, damnation, which is not what they are. >> No. >> Right. in the Old Testament. >> No, no one speaking by the spirit says Jesus is anathema. And yet here you have them saying Jesus is anathema and that's what scripture is saying. So it's not just, you know, tension. They actually are pitting scripture against scripture because they don't >> they literally literally say the Holy Spirit is saying that. >> That's horrible. >> Blasphemy. >> Yeah, that's horrible.

>> Uh, interesting angle. Can we say Islam has an influence on this? I think yes. I don't know, Father Stephen, you look like you were going to say something, but I was reading a book on uh some Roman Catholic scholar was talking about the emergence of modernity and how he went from like preodern worldviews to the modern worldview, which is like very individualistic that cuts off the individual from like any story he ever had before. But he was talking about how Avisa and Averoise like their like uh their commentaries on Aristotle were kind of the gasoline for scholasticism. Is that right? Two have two father doctors here to correct me if I'm wrong. >> I mean, the short no the short answer is yes. Yeah. So there there were a group that's collectively referred to historically as the Latin Aeroists and Thomas Aquinas was to a certain degree responding to them. The most famous one of them is CJ de Brabbant. Um, and uh, they uh basically at the core of it was Avery's um which is a latinization of like Iben Roush um argued that basically Islam was sort of philosophy for dummies like the common people can't understand the heights of philosophy right and knowledge and wisdom and therefore or well, we give them religious rituals and these things that convey some of that in a way that you know, they can they can relate to and then there's us right the philosopher kings, we can we can really understand this and so people like Cedar de Brabbant sort of adopted that view in the West right that sort of Christian yeah Christianity is philosophy for dummies right and that they sort of transcended the need for the church Right. And so part of what Thomas Aquinas and others other Scholastics are doing in trying to reintegrate philosophy and theology is to argue against that bifurcation that they're making. And that's why, you know, Thomas Aquinas is so adamant that theology is the queen of the sciences, right? Like it's at the top, right? Um, not at the b, right? That that not at the bottom underneath philosophy or something else, right? That is the sort of the peak of of human knowledge.

>> So that is a way I mean, they weren't good pious Muslims. Uh IK and Heiser were my gateway drugs to Christ's church. Oh, thank you for the super chat. Um, one heck of a lineup here. Yeah, we have a stacked panel. the most stacked panel on YouTube right now. Number one. This has been excellent stream. I appreciate you all come uh for coming on. This has been a good discussion. I just know I know we're going to have like 50 Latinizer clips. They're Look, look, they didn't cite this source for you. >> I know. I I regret coming on. Not because we didn't have a great conversation. I know what the next couple of weeks are probably going to be like for me because I came on here. I did it to myself. There's nobody to blame but myself for what I did. But, you know, my good wife, you know, she really keeps me in line. She's like, "Don't kick the hornets' nest. You know, they're going to come after you." >> That's so true. >> I know. I got it, sweetheart. I know what I'm doing. And then I'm like, "Oh, she's right. She right." >> Father Father Deacon Anony exposed. He actually only teaches eight classes. One's a half class. Yeah, you were now seen on screen with me. That that's there's a whole group of people who are now going to not like you >> there. Yeah, >> just by virtue of that. >> That's fine with me. >> I just feel sorry for all of y'all because now you're going to be all attacked that you've endorsed everything that I've ever said. So, just be prepared. They're coming after you. I'm not orthodox, but I'm somehow now a spokesperson for orthodoxy. I apologize.

>> Mason hands down. I don't want to see that. Whatever this was, >> just to clarify for people, here's why we invited Warren on the panel. >> We heard the probanon say among the heathen that the Lord reignth. >> So, we brought one on the panel and there you go. >> Or St. I love the St. Basil crush the ragings of pagans. Yeah. >> Like I say that so loud in my heart every time the priest I'm like, "Yes, Lord." >> Do you do you Here's a here's a quick because you're in a different jurisdiction than me. Um on Sunday, the procession of c of the cross, uh do you have the hymn at the end about crushing the Ishelite peoples? >> No. >> Okay. That may be just an Antio thing. It's >> okay. What jurisdiction is that in? I got to go. I gotta go over there. Uh, FL uh, Flaming Meteor. Good evening, gentlemen. Question for Father Stephen. What are your thoughts on Q Source? Muslim co-workers keep bringing it up, but I don't know how it's viewed by actual biblical scholars.

>> Yeah. So, okay. Uh, >> be right back. I'm going to run to the restroom. >> Okay. Hugh is one of uh several texts named with a letter that don't exist but that you can buy critical editions of on Amazon somehow. Um, so other texts include J E P >> L L O. So so the idea is um and this is kind of outdated now. This is kind of outdated now. Uh, but there was a time where this was the going thing. Like maybe in the 70s and 80s, I think this was really the going thing. Uh, there are sayings of Jesus in St. Matthew's gospel and St. Luke's gospel that are essentially identical like exact words in Greek. And so the theory was, well, if this is people remembering, right? St. Luke says he talked to sources and stuff. St. Matthew's remembering if they're just remembering, and especially if Jesus wasn't always speaking in Greek, why would you have the exact same Greek words? And so then the theory to explain that was well, there was this mysterious text called Q which was short for quell in uh French uh that was just all of those sayings. No narrative. It's just all of those sayings. And both St. Matthew and St. Luke looked at that and took sayings out of it. took the wording of sayings out of it for their gospels. Okay, that's the the was the theory. And then as is usual back in the goofy days of New Testament, New Testament scholarship is a lot better now. Old Testament scholarship is still horrible, but New Testament scholarship has gotten a little better. But so then they even started making other arguments based on that. So like they said, "Well, hey, look, we've got this thing, the Gospel of Thomas, and it's just sayings with no narrative, right? So that must mean it's as old as Q, which doesn't exist as you that we have no actual evidence of, right?" And so then they started arguing based on that, like the Jesus Seminar guys, >> that the Gospel of Thomas was older than the canonical gospels. And the argument was literally well it looks like Q which is this theoretical document that came before the canonical gospels. >> This is like defense, right? Like >> would you say that a lot of these scholars are just really eager to like make a new discovery and like put their mark on academia?

>> But so >> this is like so bad. There are a couple of different that's mostly been scrapped. Very few people think there was an actual Q. Now um now there are a couple of different variants of this. The most popular one is called the Griezbach hypothesis. Uh they're the guy who came up with it. But basically now most New Testament scholars think that the writers of different canotical gospels had access to the previously written ones. which is much simpler, right? Because like St. Luke says at the beginning of his gospel, not only did he talk to people, but he said, "Many people have written accounts of the life of Jesus." And that he was like compiling them. So why couldn't one of those that he looked at have been St. Matthew's gospel >> sort of much simpler and cleaner like hypothesis, right? Um, so yeah, that's people have v they have various versions of which one came first and who was looking at which part of what because of course you have to publish journal articles to keep your job in academia. But Q has basically been abandoned in favor of that. Now this person had a question about the Samson comments earlier. Well, I find no definitive evidence that Samson is a saint in light of Hebrews 11:32. I would have a hard time believing Samson is damned. >> Well, I'm not saying dogmatically he is. I just said St. Ephraim the Syrian said he is. Um um but uh all Hebrews 11:32 says, St. Paul says, "I don't have time to talk about Samson." That's literally what the text says. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't think that's weighing in on whether he's a saint or not. >> Right. >> I do not understand what this guy is trying to say. Um, in the grave bodily, but in Hades with thy soul as God, in paradise with on the throne with the Father and the Spirit fors. That's that's a prayer that we pray several times in the liturgy. >> In the liturgy. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, talking about >> right after the pro media is the first one. Yeah. >> Yeah. Christ Christ's body is in the grave, right? Uh, his soul is in Hades. >> Yeah. What's the what's the point he's trying to make? >> As God, he is in uh par as God, he is in paradise with the thief and on the throne of the father spirit. And then the rest of the prayer is filling all things thyself uncircumscribed. >> Right? So the idea is that Christ is all these places and that how can you say he was forsaken or separated from God in light of that prayer is I think the point he's trying to make, >> right? Like that whole PSA idea is ruled out by that prayer, right?

>> Uh transfigured life. I'm assuming this is Justin. Good to see you, man. Hey good people. Some have observed the problems and have shifted away from how Calvin articulates PSA in the institutes. You don't say rejecting spiritual death to prefer the language of Turin. Does he help them? >> No. Because he's substantively arguing the same thing. They're just trying to avoid language they don't >> I'm not a Turitan expert or anything but I have read his uh on the atonement. He says that the father withdrew the beatotific vision from the son. So it's like whenever you have I know right whenever you have PSA there's always going to be this dilemma of either you're going to break the hypoatic union or you going to b break the trinity like pick one and turretin opts for the trinity it seems. >> Yes. >> Yeah. just finding other words to describe it to try to loop around the counterargument is not actually >> doing anything right. You're just >> uh Rachel says or asks, "What is that prayer about renouncing Satan before you leave home and making the sign of the cross?" I looked and I can't find the exact words. Citation. Citation. Anybody Anybody know off the top of their head or >> I don't know what she's referring to. >> I mean, it sounds like something from a particular prayer book. Prayer before leaving the home, but I don't know which prayer book. >> Maybe Google that. Orthodox prayer before leaving the home. >> Yeah, I remember seeing a clip of Father Josiah talking about uh spitting towards the West uh even every time he leaves his house. So maybe that ties into >> what the super chatter was saying. >> I want PSA to be true because it gives me peace. Not sure how it does that. >> Does it give you peace or does it give you comfort? >> Right. >> And then why would you think what what would you see in scripture that would tell you the Christian life is comfortable >> when Christ tells us to take up our cross and follow him.

>> Hill leaves a super chat. There are also examples of holy monks who followed bad bishops and bad abbots and were accounted righteous for it. I guess talking about our >> the obedience >> obedient conversation. >> Octavian with the five gifted. Thank you so much for the five gifted memberships. I appreciate you. Stillgar. Uh, Corbin, sacrifice comes from the verb somebody please help me. >> Lord have mercy. >> To draw to draw near and is initiated by the one who wants to draw near sounds more like theosis than a punitive action. No. >> Yeah. Yeah. So the the focus of all of the commandments of the Torah to Israel, including the sacrificial system, is God is going to come and dwell among his people. The holy God is going to come and dwell among a sinful people. And so this is a system for managing sin and repentance to allow God to remain among his people, right? without them either being destroyed by his holiness in their wickedness on the one hand or him having to depart to prevent that. And that's what Ezekiel finally sees happening in his vision at the beginning of Ezekiel. He sees God departing from the temple. He has to leave because of the unrepentant sin of of Israel, right? And so the sacrificial system is to allow the people to draw near to God who is dwelling in their midst. Right? And the closer you're going to draw near to him, the higher a level of holiness you have to maintain. So Israel has to maintain a higher level of holiness than the other nations. The Levites have to keep a higher level of holiness than the other tribes. The priests need to keep a higher level of holiness than the rest of the Levites. The high priest has to keep the highest level of holiness because he draws the most near to God. Right? So sort of the the closer you're going to draw near to God, the higher level of uh holiness you have to maintain. Oh, Val Orthodox is in the chat. Good to see you, man. Thanks for tuning in. Uh, the Chadmiral says this stream was a an Avengers level lineup. Yeah, we we have like the the many Orthodox Avengers uh stream except for Warren's not uh not orthodox. >> I think I think of the Wonder Twins, maybe I'm that that monkey. >> Glee. >> Glee. Yeah, I think I think maybe that might be more accurate, but I'll take that. >> I want to be Captain America, but I'm probably like Dude Thor from Ingame. Uh, I went to a Serbian Orthodox parish where the kids left before the gospel reading and only came back to commune at the end. What are your thoughts on this practice? >> Why did they let them back? >> It's the Calvinist in me. I'm sorry. I have to fight those urges. >> Go roam the roads and call prophets bold. >> Um, >> the vipers and diapers. You got to fight the word. >> So, I have I have known of places that do this. I'm not a big fan of it. I think the kids should stay there. The idea is that whatever they're doing in Sunday school, they're going to be presenting the gospel reading and a kind of children's teaching to them in the place of the gospel reading and the homaly that are going to the adults. Right? Um, that's the idea behind it. But I think it's better to keep them there and do Sunday school separately. It's good to tie those together, the Sunday school with the the homaly and the the gospel reading and the epistle reading for the day, but um I think it's better to do it separately. >> Yeah. Ours is ours is after uh after the entire service and uh at the beginning of coffee hour. I like it. >> Most Orthodox churches I've been to either do it after or during mattens sometimes. >> Like the parents will come to mattens or orthos and then and that's obviously in places other traditions they don't do mattens before liturgy on Sunday morning. But um, yeah, some that do we'll have the adults come to orthos or mattens and then the kids go to Sunday school.

>> Uh stacked live stream W. Father Steven D. WFDA W Saurin W Cleave W Orin L Calvinism Luther L Gallagher L Orland L Matt Slick W Incense. That's a lot of that's a lot of L's. Dude, >> he had to get that out. I think >> that's hilarious that it's like our debate opponents. >> Yeah. Father Deacon debating that's like and I know uh Father Stephen he doesn't he doesn't do debates. It was a dialogue with uh Portland but nonetheless that's funny. Warren, didn't you debate Matt as well? Matt's leg >> I did. Uh that was an interesting uh experience. We um debated inherited guilt and total inability and his defense was you're a heretic and a Pelagian. I still remember him just like I'm thinking I'm like dude Matt Slick is just trying to big dog War in this whole time. He's not actually engaging with any of this substance. That was that was a crazy He kind of tried to do the same thing with you too, Father Deacon. Right. Well, he just he wasn't really having it with you. >> Matt Slick's an interesting figure. Every every debate I've ever seen him in, he just shouts the same thing over and over again like it's going to change the way he said it. The last time one I saw it was a like a solos scriptura or something and he just said uh open your Bible. Open it. Open your Bible. Just read your Bible. It's there. Open your Bible. And he's like where? He's like open it. It says it. >> You have to understand though, he thinks you're a reprobate. >> Yeah, that's right. >> If your heart is hardened by sin, it doesn't matter what he says, you won't understand it anyway, right? So, there's no point in trying to reason with you. >> Do you know my favorite part of the debate was remember when he was um he was like, "You're this man's [ __ ] I bet he can't even drive, right?" And so I trolled him and I was like, "Well, that's not funny. I'm actually handicapped and I can't drive." And he's like, "I'm handicapped, too. I HAVE AUTISM." BUT IT BACKFIRED BECAUSE you know I'm going around doing conferences and going to different parishes and they're like, "Father de nice. I saw your debate. I thought you were in a wheelchair. Everybody thought it was like a you know I was being um I was actually being literal about and not trolling him." But like I actually can't believe him got him to admit. He's like I'm handicapped too. I'm autistic. >> His approach his approach is like uh yelling at airplanes flying overhead and shooting his BB gun at him. It's >> Yeah, it's uh it's unique.

>> Uh stacked panel. Thank you everyone for what you do. Thank you for the big super chat. $20. Appreciate it. >> Contemporary compendium. Hey men, Daddy. That's right. To be fair to the PSA guys, what is the most charitable correct interpretation of their quote minds? Apologies if you already covered it. Yeah, we did. But maybe a brief summary. >> It varies a lot from quote to quote. >> In some cases, they're just straight don't understand what they're posting. >> That's charitable, I guess. Um, >> AI. >> Yeah. Sometimes it's a bad AI translations. Uh, sometimes it's quotes they got from AI that don't exist. Um >> I'm not good at being charitable I think >> uh this one is for FDA particularly your catechetical lecture on third's day are more helpful than you can imagine you're the man FDA >> thank you God bless you I'll have to add that to how I celebrate third's day I was thinking that's an Orthodox calendar thing I'm not familiar with. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Third day. That'll be the next uh catechetical lecture. How to spell Thursday. No, I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. Forgive me. I'm being mean. I'm just sorry. Thank you for the super chat. Um, Orthodox Mickey as Father Stephen Young or Father Deacon and I talked to Orthodox Inson or Mar the Reququum. These are the ones pushing PSA and inherited guilt and claiming it's orthodox most. Well, Mah is like just some weightlifting guy on X. So, like he's also a teenager. Why are we I don't I mean I don't have anything against Mar. I guess Mar knew me from a long time ago uh when I was a Protestant and I had made a Tik Tok for two days, got sick of it and then stopped using it and then now I'm back on it. But uh I guess he knew me from back then. But he's like, isn't he just like a teenage weightlifter guy? Why is he doing theological stuff? >> Aren't they all teenagers? This is >> I'm telling you, it's this weird I have it uh Lord of the Flies theology. Um, kids know best. They're all these young people out there. Um, and what's the Orientals have? Um, what's his name? Their favorite guy. He's like 18. I think it's just bizarro that they're erecting all these uh young manchildren to teach the and lead them. >> Yeah, >> I tried to have a conversation with Orthodox Inson and uh he blocked me. And then Paul Vandery who I've done a lot of work with. He is actually Orthodox by the way. Good friend of mine. Shout out to Paul. He's been on the channel. We've done a lot of work exposing PSA and uh Paul was like, "Let's have a dialogue. Let's have a formal debate and Orthodox Inson ran as fast as he could from that. There's no accountability there." >> Yeah. >> Well, he always he he also misrepresents his his quotes. I I think he's going to he's going to learn he's going to learn the error of his ways eventually. uh I don't think he'll admit to it, but he will stop quoting people who are still alive because I saw in a thread he had quoted uh Father John Witford and was trying to say that he taught PSA and then someone tagged him and Father John Whitford said, "I do not teach PSA. You are misrepresenting me. That is not what I mean." And then there's like a whole thread of them arguing after that. He's like, "No, you actually did. You know, you you are P. No, dude. I don't >> just delete the account and crawl under a a dark rock and never come back out after that. That's embarrassing. >> Whiteford will kill all you. Yeah, that's not >> Yeah, I'm uh I've mostly chosen the path of ridicule with Orthodox Enson. Uh mockery. Uh he he named my Twitch stream. >> Yeah, I think he talked about that. Yeah, >> one of the many times when uh I was there there there's a few people online who I just live in their head rentree. Um, like I never interact with them and they keep talking about me all the time. Um, and he's one of them. And so somebody brought up something about me and uh he posted a link to my Twitch channel and he said, "I I suppose this stream is magisterial for you modernists." Right? And so I begin every Twitch stream now with welcome to the magisterial live stream for modernists. >> Yeah, >> since then. >> That's what I did on X after James White was attacking me. I I quoted him calling me a um what was it? A little little known uh little little known heretic or something like that. I was like, "Okay, I'll I'll take that. Thank you." That's like um that's like the Vatican Catholic intros like a proliferous heretic uh uh Christian Wagner or you know whatever. I'm I'm waiting I'm waiting on the day you know I was I was so hyped. I did a video a long time ago and I was mentioned in one of his videos but he didn't mention my name. He just >> no uh Vatican Catholic uh the Diamond Brothers >> because I I did a video on his uh his bogus prophecy about the Vatican getting blasted by a meteor uh when Pope Francis died because there was a long a long time ago he made a video. He's like uh it was his brother Michael and he was like he was like uh uh anti-Pope Francis will be the last anti- pope in the Vatican 2 sect. a meteor will come and destroy the Vatican according to uh St. Malachi's prophecy or something. >> Oh, there's still that out there. >> I did I did a video on it and then he uh uh his brother came out and did a video that was like uh certain certain uh certain prominent online liars say that we you know whatever. I'm like, "Say my name, dude. Come on." Like, you're ripping me off.

>> That monk Malachi thing. Uh, Jack Vanimpi used to trot that out all the time. >> Oh, Jack and Rexella. Jack and Rexella. Wow. You're taking me back now. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> Jack. >> Yeah. >> When we first >> My dad My dad My dad used to watch them all the time, man. And I remember watching that and I'm like, "What are we doing?" >> Yeah. The uh when we first started doing Lord of the Spirits, I told Father Andrew, I'm like, "This is not going to turn into Jack Vanipi Presents." where like you read something and they go, "What does this mean, Father Stephen?" >> And then I give a bunch of Bible verses, right? Like that's not >> I don't know. >> I think I think you need to do one episode in that style just just so we could kind of see what it would be like maybe in the multiverse. Yeah, I I did once do the Jack Vanimpy Bible quoting style as a joke uh on the show because he would always like make some outrageous claim and then just rattle off verses way faster than anyone could look them up, right? So he'd be like, "So Juan Carlos, King of Spain is the Antichrist." Ezekiel 5:7, Amos 2:1, Joel 3:5. Just look around and you're like, "Wait, it says something about Juan Carlos, king of Spain in there. What?" Uh, guitar tuning says, "Albert Pike admits Freemasons worship Lucifer." This was brought up in Aiden Mattis's debate with uh Jay and Tim Gordon when they were on Tim P's show. And uh, what Aiden said to that was, "Well, Albert Pike doesn't represent Freemasonry." He did like a no true Freemason appeal there. So, I think that's what he'll do if I because I told him, look, like I I'm I'm not unwilling to have you on to have a discussion, but I'm not doing a debate. Like, I'm I'm not debating period. Point blank. I you know, I'll have a priest on. We could talk theology. I might ask, why are you an Anglican? Why are you a Freemason? How does this make sense? >> Just why? >> Yeah. Why? Why? Give me answers. I want answers. Uh, but if if it was a like a debate scenario or whatever, I could toss out a million Freemasonic citations and he would just tell me that none of them are real Freemasons. Mine's like just a barbecue. So then the question would be like just why not just have a barbecue and not be Freemason? >> Just be a Christian. >> Yeah.

>> Well, you know, here's a good uh de debate line to ask somebody. What would it take for you to renounce it? um either they haven't thought about that they don't know or they say nothing. It's the true faith. It's the >> I'm a true believer. >> He's the true faith. Yikes. >> That's a good question to ask. I think you should ask him that. >> Yeah, that would be that would be a good thing to bring to bring up. What would it take? What would it take for you to let go of this idol that you're you know that you're holding on to this freemasonic idol? I get the feeling like that's why he became I don't I don't want to speak for him because I'm gonna have a conversation with him, but these are thoughts that I've had. I get the feeling like that's maybe why he went the Anglican route because he's um, you know, he recently went that direction and I think the reason for that is because they're accepting of uh Freemasonry and they have been historically as well. Um, you know, the uh Archbishop of Canterbury uh has been uh you know, a level 33 master mason. Uh, you know, if you look at the Episcopal Church, they're seminaries are literally built right next to George Washington Freemasonic Monument. I mean, it's it's entrenched, you know, in that culture there. >> Don't they have a woman bishop now? >> They do. Yes. >> So, what are you gonna do about that? >> She's not a That would be that would be daughter. That's what it is. >> Yeah. Eastern Star. Yeah. She's doing that. >> Yeah. Um, Vigo, many thanks in Christ for the stream, fathers and Ben, but not not Warren or Alex. No thanks for you. >> I can understand. I could understand excluding me, but what did Alex do? >> What did you ever do?

Oh my gosh. Just imputed onto me. I didn't do nothing. Uh, Octavian $10 advanced payment for postl gluttonous indulgences. Did you see? Did you see there's like a a ex-Catholic Reddit where it's like 40 days of indulgences and they just like take pictures of them eating donuts or something. They're mocking the uh, they're mocking the um, well, first off, they're mocking the fast, but they're also mocking a uh, uh, their indulgence practices or something.

Did you see that on? No, I don't go on to Reddit. Why would I see something like that? Well, I don't I don't use Reddit either, but you see the screenshot show. Now disclaiming. I mean, I didn't see it there. I didn't. It's like you just said you saw a Baptist at a liquor store like I saw screenshots of. That's true. Yeah. You don't you don't I don't want the uh, I don't want the Redditor accusations to stick. Actually, I will admit this live on stream. I I I do use Reddit for game tutorials. There you go. But I don't uh, I don't actually frequent the website. Um, did did All right, here you go. Did Father Steven Young go over the sins never being put on an animal? That explanation. Yes. Also FDA, your catechumen class is awesome. Father Bless.

Thank you. Do you want to maybe summarize this for him in case he's watching or something? I mean, I there's no place in the Bible where sins are put on an animal and then it's sacrificed. There you go. That's a good summary. It's a very short summary.

I've got a joke. I've got a joke for you, Alex. Okay. So, uh, there's this couple and uh, they're on their way. They're driving through the mountains. They're on their way to get married. And tragically, car ends up going off a cliff. They both die. So they get they get to the pearly gates, right? St. Peter's there. They say to St. Peter, "You know, I know I I know you're probably going to say no, right? And I know this isn't how things are done here, but more than anything, the two of us just wanted to be married. We were about to get married, right? Is there any way? Is there any way you could make an exception and the two of us can get married in heaven?" St. Peter says, "Well, you're right. That's normally no." Right? But I understand. I see your love for each other. Let me see what I can do. So, he disappears through the pearly gates. He's gone for three years. Okay. Couple's just standing there talking, right? He comes back. He says, "Well, I have great news. Normally, we we've never done this before. Never happened before, but in light of your love for each other or make an exception, we're we're going to allow you to get married before you enter into heaven." And the husband says, "Well, you know, St. Peter, while you were gone, I mean, thanks for that. That's awesome, right? We've been here for three years now talking about things. What if something happens, right? Is there any way if things don't work out the way we think, we could get a divorce?" And St. Peter slams down his clipboard and says, "I just spent three years trying to find a priest up here. Now you want me to find a lawyer?"

That's a good one. Oh man, I love it. Yeah. Yeah. Before we started, I was telling Cleave, I said, "Alex is at the top of my list for my favorite attorneys. He's he's just the only one on that list."

Thank you. Nice. Thanks. Glad our reputation of our guild precedes us.

That's it. Uh, Mitch says, "Take my all penance for blowing the fast today. Kids on spring break throws everything off." Well, thank you for supporting the show, man. Um, off-topic question. How would an Orthodox Christian respond to a Catholic's claim that the Pope unilaterally invalidated the Second Council of Ephesus and that the East accepted the Pope's decision? You always needed the pentarchy. The freaking what's it what's it called? uh, the K8 document concedes this that it always was the uh, the reception of the church that was the ultimate test for whether a council is ecumenical. Not even Roman Catholic scholars. Sorry, I feel like I'm coming off as like kind of aggressive. I'm just very passionate about the issue because this one keeps on coming up. Just read the K8 document. This is they'll talk about, oh, it's not magisterial. They brought it up. You said K8. Okay, it's also some of their top scholars. It's also all their leaders in the Vatican who they have to listen to.

Literally Pope Leo said he affirms the document. Like by the way, there's two fallacies here. There's a fallacy of non-falsificationism and then also um, uh, I just blanked on what, but basically I'll explain what's going on here. Um, oh, begging the question. Okay. So, they take the principle that's in question and they always do this. They read it back in. So, and they read it back on a way too that also ends up being non-falsifiable. So, well, if uh, if Pope Leo says something, right, and the rest of the church agrees with it, what is that proof of? Everything's proof of my position. Now, there can be proof against it, right? Which is this non-falsificationism. Oh, well, it means you see uh papal supremacy and then well, what happens if a council's called apart from uh, a pope, which has happened, um, and the pope submits to later to the council. Well, you see, it wasn't uh, it wasn't a legitimate council. Anyways, that's what's going on here. They will take exactly what's in question, assume it, then read it in, and then it's always proof of my position. Well, you see, of course, people can listen to patriarch. You can appeal to a different patriarch in other places. Um, that's called Rome's worthless, right? So again, just because the pope says something or is appealed to and a council accepts that, right, that's called consiliism. Just as uh, the K8 document, Alexandria document points out. Um, it's not proof that the pope unilaterally dictates to the other, but they'll always read it. Like that's where it's like there's no helping these people if everything's proof of your position and nothing can be proof against it or evidence against it. Why? There's no dialogue. Which Cleave is why I asked you to ask the Mason that question. It's a good. You could ask a papist this too. What would it take for you to see and uh, leave papism? What do you think they'll say?

Nothing. It's the true church. Yeah.

Another thing that uh, I brought up in my debate with Elijah, but I didn't actually push too hard on it because you were in the open discussion question, but Leo's letter 120. Pope St. Leo's letter 120. Uh, he says that the council at Ephesus added something to his tome. So I'll take like 30 seconds and read it out here for you. He says, "We go not away and ought from those rules of faith which the Godhead of the Holy Ghost brought forward at the council of Chalcedon. and weigh our words with every caution so as to avoid the two extremes of new false doctrine. Not any longer, God forbid it. God forbid it as if debating what is doubtful, but with full authority laying down conclusions already arrived at. So who had the full authority? The council of Chalcedon. It affirmed uh uh what was already true, right? For in the letter which we issued from the apostolic sea referring to his tome which has now been ratified by the ascent of the entire holy synod. We know that so many divinely authorized witnesses are brought together so that no one can entertain any further doubt except one who prefers to enwrap himself in clouds of error and the proceedings of the synod whether those in which we read the formulating of the definition of faith." So what is he saying? He's saying the synod added something to his tome. This is not an ex-cathedra statement as many uh papists like to make out. He recognized that the council could add something to his teaching.

We see Alex, that's not what the words actually mean. He was just more humble. The the one thing the one thing that I would add to this is that um, I mean, you you really do have to look at the fruits of this system. So if you're going to accept this, well, it's really an innovation that this this papal it's not it's not valid unless you know the pope says so so on and so forth and this is the end all be all. Well, you know what that system has got you? It got you Vatican 2, which most modern Roman Catholics hate. Ask them in private what they think about Vatican 2. They'll rant your they'll rant your ear off about how it ruined the church, so on and so forth. Um, so I mean, just you can you'll know them by their fruits to be honest. There's more that you could say about that. I mean, and and I know we we've talked about this a lot, Alex. So I think we'll we'll move on.

Yeah. Just because I mean, we could do an entire stream on the on the papacy stuff and the and the. Another seven hours. Yeah. Right. Cleave, Cleave, Stephen Anderson's sermon Orthodoxy and Light of the Bible doesn't include any fun gamer words. So, if you wanted to react to any of his sermons, that's a great candidate. All right, I will pre-watch it because I don't trust you. Steve Anderson will drop slurs on a dime. So, you know, uh, I I'll I'll check it out and then maybe I'll react to it in a later live stream. Uh, Warren would be a boss EO apologist.

Bro, I struggle to tie my shoes. I think that's very kind of you to say. You can get the Velcro ones. There you go. I have slip-ons. I'm not even that complicated. Get the Crocs. Get the Crocs in sport mode. Then you're really rocking, dude. Then then watch out, buddy.

Uh, Father Stephen Young, when are you boxing Wes Huff in the debate ring? Yeah, that uh, I famously once challenged Gavin Ortland to a steel cage match. Uh, but uh, we got we got the discussion instead. I do I want to try and beat I'm fighting my inner meanness like as we speak. Um, you know, I liked Wes Huff's work as Adam Warlock in Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3. Uh, but uh, I haven't.

I'm not gonna be able to unsee that now. Yeah, that's gonna stick with you. Um, I haven't seen AI and create that. I I haven't seen anything from him that impressed me as like unique to him. For whatever reason. Everything I've ever seen from him has been kind of like the kind of take I would hear from any of my fellow Protestant PH my fellow PhD students who are Protestant. Right. Right. It's like the same kind of takes and stuff. He has very standard Protestant takes on things. So to me, having any kind of discussion debatish thing with him isn't super interesting to me just because like I could just comment on the normie Protestant biblical studies takes, right? Like there's not an added thing there where he brings some unique thing to it. And maybe I miss something. I haven't watched like everything he's ever said, obviously. you know, maybe he does have some area where he's got, you know, I don't know what his dissertation was about. Maybe that topic he's. He's a manuscript. He's a manuscript guy. So, I mean, he's not really he doesn't really do. I mean, he dabbles in apologetics, but only when it's someone who's like inconsequential, you know? Yeah. The stuff he puts out on Twitter is just real normie takes and like. Yeah. There's no difference between a presbyter and a and bishop in the New Testament. Everybody who reads it knows that I'm like tell that to the Lutheran and the Anglicans and. Well, it's copy it's copy paste arguments from Gavin Ortland videos and then it's also. He won't he won't do the apologetics directly. He won't do debates so with with Orthodox at all period unless he finds some. Some, I don't know. He might find like some guy that has like no following or something that nobody knows about and then pull him up and say look I get it I debated the Orthodox and then, you know, get it over with. But I I don't see him. I don't see him doing a debate with anybody with any kind of following or stand like. Maybe if he has some kind of take, I don't know if he even does on lectionaries and textual criticism or something. I don't know. Yeah. I'm reaching here to try to figure out something that would be interesting to talk to him about. I'm sure there's something. I do think that in a way he's kind of wise in his approach because he did like one notable debate against like. Billy car what was his name? Billy Carson. Yeah. Billy Carson. Yeah. Like one of the most odd like the biggest oddball on the internet. And somehow that just like skyrocketed him. It's like winning the lottery in a way. Just skyrocket. And I I see he's like just trying to hold on to his lottery winnings. Jesus was an alien. That's that's his debate. Yeah. Yeah. Was Jesus an alien? And then that that made you like number one guy. You know what was crazy? That um diary of a CEO interview that he did. You know what they titled it? Number one Christianity expert joins the show. Wes Huff. What's his qualifications? He beat Billy Corson in a debate and never debated again. I I am not too proud to admit that if somebody put that on a title that I was in a video, I would get business cards made up and I would hand those out to everyone after that. Yeah. That's true. Well, you know, you know, on the on the Orthodox ethos video, it said top Protestant apologists. So now. I saw that. I saw that, dude. Yeah, you're big time. I'm gonna get some business cards made. I don't know if I would want to brag about that title though. But I'll give that away. I'll give that away to uh Billy Corson. Uh, all right, Esleie. Avengers lineup was suspiciously absent of a certain father. Ron, he was in the chat. Also in before Warren feels the scorn of father Stephen Young's many rational critics, quote unquote.

Um, here's an interesting one. Any one of you willing to debate Eric Ibara on PSA? Father Steven already said no. Asking again. Does he believe PSA? Like. No, he doesn't. Since I'm not teaching any classes, I have tons of free time. Um, in his in his book, uh, this was a conversation he and I had, but he already blabbed on Twitter about things I said in the conversation to try to attack me. So, I don't care. The position he takes in his book is uh, basically just Thomas Aquinas' version of satisfaction theory. Very boring normie Roman Catholic take. He just has this weird thing where he thinks penal substitution should be an umbrella term. For like five different unlike atonement theories for some reason. Yeah. I don't even know what the debate would be. Maybe is that actually PSA? Yeah. Should that be used as an umbrella term? I just said to him that that just seems to be to make the discourse more difficult because now you've just removed PSA from the playing field. So now we have to talk about like the Calvinist view, the Lutheran view, the right like and make all these where PSA for the Calvinist view kind of, you know. Yeah. But if you water it down and muddy it enough and make it complicated enough, then it makes it easier to defend. Yeah, I guess. Well, yeah. It also see it allows you to do the trick they were all trying to do over the weekend, which is switch to propitiate to uh, satisfaction and claim you're still defending PSA. When really you've abandoned PSA for satisfaction theory if you make it an umbrella term that includes both. Right.

Uh, there was a super chat I guess I I skipped. Uh, he said I can't find the actual comment but I remember kind of sort of because he left it again as a text but I can't find it again. He said something along the lines of father Stephen can you just I guess you had some comments about creation ex nihilo and he wanted clarification on some recent comments on that. Oh, here you go. It was for father Steven Young clarification for creation ex nihilo and from prime matter especially on the scholarly debate on it.

Oh, okay. So th this wasn't recent but yeah, so Genesis 1 is describing creation out of chaos. Creation ex nihilo you find in other places in the Old Testament including the book of Wisdom, including Proverbs. Right? So creation ex nihilo is the biblical teaching, right? But just the way it's described poetically in Genesis 1 is creation out of chaos. And so I I at one point talking about this, although this was a few years ago, but everything's on the internet forever. I made the comparison with Aristotle's idea of prime matter and trying to explain chaos, right? Because the first question you get when you talk about creation out of chaos, when you talk about the ancient Near East, right? We're using their terms, right? So their categories of being and non-being are not the same as ours. So they would say if you have like for Aristotle, pure undifferentiated prime matter isn't anything. And that flies in the face of how we view matter. We're like, well, no, matter is a thing, right? Like matter means it's atoms, right? Like no no no no no that's not it can become anything but it isn't anything.

Yeah, it's pure poly. So yeah, so the question, well, if God created from chaos, who created the chaos is not a sensical question because as soon as you create, it's not chaos anymore, right? By definition in that ancient paradigm, in that ancient way of talking. So that is not denying creation ex nihilo at all. That's just talking about the mode of discourse in Genesis 1 in particular.

Uh, this guy I guess had a super chat that was that was missed. He alerted me in the chat. He said I asked if women are ever blessed by priests to go behind the iconostasis and if so when would this exception be made?

Monasteries and convents, other places. So, for example, I got invited to speak a couple years ago at the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham uh in England, which has a small Orthodox chapel inside the larger shrine. Um, where a number of saints celebrated the liturgy. So, the fact that I got to go in there and celebrate the liturgy at one point was amazing. But um, there is a nun who lives there, an Orthodox nun who lives there whose job is to take care of the chapel, clean things, right, straighten things up, maintain things, and she's blessed to do that by the bishop. She's actually Dutch. She's from the Netherlands, so we had a lot of conversations. But um, so that happens. Um, those are the those are the main times. And of course uh, people people don't remember uh, now, but the Empress, the Byzantine Empress used to receive the Eucharist not at the altar, but behind the iconostasis off to the side. Um, so yeah, people have this misnomer that women aren't allowed behind the iconostasis. I try to tell people, no, the rule is no one is allowed behind the iconostasis unless the bishop has blessed them to go back there for a particular purpose. Right? I don't go hang out back there and like listen to podcasts, right? Like I have been ordained blessed by the bishop to go there to celebrate the divine services. When I'm back there, I'm either cleaning, preparing, or celebrating one of the divine services, right? That's when I'm back there. If I'm not doing that, I'm not back there. Right? And so anyone who is blessed by the bishop for that particular purpose can do that particular purpose there and that's it. All right. Um, let's see. Clement of Alexandria reads Matthew 19 as disciples asking if after a divorce for fornication, a second marriage is fitting. Christ replies with eunuchs. 1 Corinthians 7 applies same principle plus vocation to marriage, divorce, virginity. Why the platonizing hierarchy?

What? I don't even know what that means. I was kind of following until that whole platonizing hierarchy. Platonizing? Yeah. I'm not sure what you're asking about. I'm not following that either. I think he's he's. Are you reading into this that St. Paul is saying that it's better not to be married in general? Because that's not what he's saying. He's saying it's better not to contract a second marriage except for re particular reasons, right? He says, I mean, why people read into 1 Corinthians 7. Okay. I I guess maybe that answered his question that maybe people read that it's better not to be married. Yeah, St. Paul is talking about remarriage, not marriage in general.

Somebody else is saying I skipped their super chat. If you if that if that is actually the case, don't start scamming me now. But I got I do have to wrap up in like 15 minutes though. So, we'll try to we'll try to blast through some of these because. St. Paul says that the marriage bed is holy and undefiled. So, there's no way to get from St. Paul to some kind of idea that sex between married couples is innately evil or bad or you know, or marriage is bad or any of that. Unless you're Augustine. Well, yeah. Well, I don't think he got there from St. Paul. I think he got there. His own personal issues. From uh, from Manichaeism. Yep.

Um, when are we getting an eight-hour stream like Alex did the other night? Probably never on this channel. Well, I'm an old man. I feel like I get tired. If you're really into long streams, barrage Ancient Faith with requests that they let me do my 24-hour marathon Lord of Spirits episode. I've been trying to do this. I want to do it for charity. I want to get like rotating guest hosts to come in because like Father Andrew has to be in bed by sundown or he gets all testy, right? You can't like every two hours a different guest host come in, like co-host come in. That would be 24 hours straight. So send send your cards and letters to Ancient Faith telling them to let me do it. The only catch is when you're when you're on there, you can only play Marvel Rivals. Oh, that'd be even easier. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be great? So all the guests are doing the heavy lifting and you're just playing Marvel Rivals. Um, yeah, when we were playing Marvel Rivals, I mean, I'm not good at that game at all. I got kind of I got. You did okay on Rocket? Yeah. Well, playing healer is like that's like cheating though. I just spam click click the people click them over and over again and that keeps. Jay has played since our stream. Oh, has he? Yes, he has. So, he may he may be getting better. I um, I want to do another gaming stream, but I got to figure out what is bottlenecking my is it my streaming software or is it actually my PC? I mean, my PC's pretty good. So, I don't know why it was so laggy on my end. That's why that's why I had to move it to members because it was unwatchable. So, I was like, "Everybody just go watch it on Father Steven's channel." Mine's like um. Yeah, my video was like. Yeah. Fine. Yeah. Mine mine if you watch it, it was like but we weren't lagging. It was just the screen I was sharing. So I think it was Streamyard. And then it was the three of you just like locked in like. Yeah. Well, I was trying to get everybody to talk, but everybody was like so frustrated with getting ganked. I was like, I don't care. Just die over and over again. Well, all of you could have downloaded the game a couple days early and practiced, you know, like that would have solved the problem. Yeah, true. I want to um, I wanted to stream actually. I've been playing this game Icarus. Uh, it was on like 11 bucks on Steam or something. That game is fun, but my one my one buddy that plays it when I play it with him, he's like he's good for an hour and then he gets bored and then I'm like, "Ah, but I don't want to like progress way past him without the guy." You know what I mean? Yeah. Anytime I play a game with a buddy that's like that, I'm like, "Dang it, now I gotta wait for you to want to play the game." You know? See, I have no social life. So, like if you and I play uh and I get addicted, you come in the next day and you're like, "Level 40. What What have you done?" I have a problem. I have a problem. We have max level everything. Max level base. Uh, CLF says, "Father Steven D. Young, did you see the Dune 3 trailer today? Thoughts?"

Yes, I did. Uh, I mean, it's a short trailer, but it looks like they're going to be faithful to the second book, which is going to be amazing because for those of you who haven't read the Dune books, uh, Paul Trades turns into like space mustache man like in the story like way worse than Anakin Skywalker, right? Turning into Darth V like way worse. Uh, so it's gonna be interesting to see a lot of young women be very disappointed in everything about that movie. Uh, and a lot of guys really digging it. Um, and then the other funny thing is that uh, you know, Warner Brothers is going to want to continue to cash in. So even though Denis Villeneuve is out, you know, they're going to try and adapt the other three novels. And the other three novels jump forward in time. If you don't know. And uh uh spoilers for a book that's like 60 years old. Uh uh Paul's son ends up evolving into a half man, half sandworm. It's like God Emperor of the uh. Yep. God Emperor of Dune of the Galaxy. So watching them do that with special effects is going to be amazing when Warner Brothers decides they need to keep cashing in. I don't know if they're gonna get to that. That's what I said when I first watched the uh because I I read all the Dune books. So, yeah. Uh, it gets really really weird. I don't know how they're going to make that into a movie adaptation. You got because it's slow. He like slowly starts morphing into a worm. How are they going to do that? They're gonna have to like skip or something, you know? I don't think they're gonna like see like, you know, like I am, you know. I came to see Timothy Chalamet, not Jabba the Hutt. What? Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Um, Eddie, yeah. See, I didn't skip. I didn't skip. There was just so many. You were the next You were the next in line. There's a lag behind when these are getting answered because it's like uh, there were so many that, you know, they take a little while. Eddie says, "Can I still go around and threaten my pro-life friends with losing PSA even though I don't believe it myself?" Oh, Jesus ain't going to cover that. I mean, it's bad for him, but who am I to judge? Uh, planks and pieces says, "The Latinizers yesterday tried to say my own priest, Father Patrick Reardon, teaches PSA, insane levels of pre-lust." Well, you know, a lot of them would make somebody admit this. They. Remember you sent this to me. We were doing this. Yeah. Yep. They they make lists of priests they don't like and will say they affirm their position so that you blow them up with emails asking if that's what they hold. Yeah. So know that when you like these people are devious. So if you ask them like who holds this position like no no no clergy hold this position, no bishop or so on and so forth. They'll give you a list so that you will go and blow up these people and ask them if they hold a PSA. And often it's people that they just don't like. So that might be the case. Plex.

See, I know most of you guys have never met Father Pat, but he has this amazing sonorous deep voice. Uh, and so I'm just imagining him hearing that in person and his like reaction. Um, I don't know what this is about. My deepest and sincerest apologies. Please forgive my bad behavior. I lost my mind for a moment. Well, I didn't see anything. So, I guess you're good. The spirit of Lent, you're forgiven. There you go. Forgiven.

Uh, just a bit of support from an orthobro enjoying the stream. Thank you for the support. Did any one of you see Wes getting cooked on Andrew Schultz's podcast about EO being the true church? Andrew isn't even Orthodox. It was pretty incredible. Yes. That was weird and random, but yeah. Yes. And actually, I was a Protestant at the time and he that was right after that podcast, he DM'd me and uh, we were gonna we were going to maybe do a show or something together and I was I was going to offer him in private some like advice or whatever about how to handle some of the lines of reasoning, but that never came to fruition. Seems like you had to come to the Orthodox side for the money, I guess, right? Yeah. Right. Well, that's that's the funny thing about like the like I don't know every that's like the new buzzword grifter. You call anybody a grifter like uh so it's like you don't you don't understand. I know people see the super chats and they're like whoa like whoa. Okay, YouTube takes 30% first off, but um, I was I was a paid member of clergy at my church, right? Like you know, you actually make money as a pastor. Giving that up cost something real. Okay. Not only that though, the opportunities that if I would have stayed Protestant, I mean, I would have been I would have been collabing with George Janko. I probably would have had Wes on. I probably would have had these other people on. I mean, I was already on Rouselon. I just gone on Gavin Ortland's show. Uh, you know, I'd been on, you know, I was making the rounds. If I would have stayed there um, you know, I would have been making a lot more money. That was honestly the temptation was um, you know, oh, like maybe maybe just wait a little bit to convert or something like get away, Satan, you know, flick them off my shoulder. Uh, but I mean, at the end of the day, no amount, no amount of money uh, you know, is going to. Keep me from wanting to enter into the Orthodox church. I feel like that is the temptation for a lot of these Protestant apologists though. I feel like that is a real temptation for especially the guys with the bigger platforms. I know like I. I like Gavin. We've had many conversations uh and he's a he's you know, I think he's a genuine guy. I do think that is a big temptation for him though because it's dynastic. So this is a real thing for a lot of the guys in the Protestant camp. The opportunities to grow monetarily, uh, temporally, um, you know, the prestige and all of this stuff. It's there, right? And this is the same, this is the same thing for people who are thinking about leaving Protestantism and they look at Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism, especially political commentators, because they see what you're what they're thinking is where's my off-ramp, right? I it like I don't see any like where's my off-ramp? Okay. Well, I'm a I'm a, you know, Protestant political commentator. Oh, well, you know, uh, if I'm going to weigh Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Well, I don't really see too many Orthodox political commentators in mainstream media. But aren't there's like there's like three Roman Catholics on Shapiro's show. Maybe if I become Roman Catholic, you know, I can get in with some of that. That's a real thought people have in their head. So I. Whereas you thought to yourself, I want to be really financially successful. I'll take my cues from the Greeks.

Father, your um, your blessing. Um, I'm going to retire. As I always say, it's uh, I'm already late for Matlock and Murder, She Wrote and uh, like Cleave said, I'm old man. So yeah. Alex, Warren, Cleave, and uh, great to be here and uh, um, with you, Father, and by your blessing. Yeah, thank you. Depart in peace. Thank you. Good to see you, FDA. Good to see you guys. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Yeah. All right. You know who really is a grifter, though? It's people that don't expose their views to scrutiny. Like Messenger of Truth, I'll drop names. I don't care. You're going to come up here and you're going to put a bunch of videos out there. You're not even going to expose your views to scrutiny and see if they can withstand, you know, somebody else actually critically analyzing them in real time. You're just going to put up like all these videos where you're calling out other people but not exposing yourself to scrutiny. And that's that is a textbook grifter. I mean. Sure, you can just call anybody a grifter. Say what you want, fine. At the end of the day, I will put my views on the line. Warren has, you know, we all have at one point. So, it's not like we're faking it up here. There are people that do like Messenger of Truth. He doesn't do debates. He's a big fake apologist. Yeah. Amot. Yes. Oh my gosh. He's the guy who said uh babies deserve to starve because they are born sinners and should repent. He's a fake. Yes. He's a grifter. He's a fake apologist. He went he went on and he saw my thumbnails where James White was calling me a cult leader and I was like, "Let me respond to this." And he goes, "Look, he's calling James White a cult leader." And I'm like, "No, I didn't." And he blocked me so people couldn't see that he was was misrepresenting. Yeah. He's just No. Yeah. Not a not a fan of that young man. Yeah.

All right. And and on uh on that note of FDA heading out, let's let's try to wrap up these supers real quick. I've got I've got nine more to go through. So, I'm just gonna We'll. Keep sending him money. Keep them up forever. No, don't. My wife My wife needs to go to bed. So, I do have to wrap up here in a bit. If it was just me, you know, it wouldn't be a big deal, but she does have to go to bed. We are sharing an office and a bedroom right now. So, um, I appreciate y'all's support though. I don't want to sound ungrateful. I really do appreciate everybody's support and y'all watching the stream. We've had over 500 consecutive viewers throughout the entire stream. So, this has been excellent. And thank you all so much for coming on, too. This has been a a fun a fun discussion. Yeah, I think two of my I think two of my viewers uh made it over here. So, you're you're welcome. Awesome. Praise God. That's a powerful raid right there. That's it. Right on. Now, after after we wrap up, I'm gonna have to find some channel with like two subscribers and send all 500 of you over there, you know? I saw there was a there was a YouTube video where a guy did that. He was like he had like a million something subscribers. He's like like sending people over in raids to like people with zero. Um, all right. I had a question about Christian animism. Is it heretical? What do you mean by that? Yes. There you go. Is the short version. Easy. It's talking about the the sort of syncretism stuff that the Roman Catholic Church does in Southeast Asia. That's what he said. Where they're trying to incorporate sort of local tra local traditions which happened to involve, you know, worshiping the spirit of the river and the spirit of the tree. Well, he says uh he says he was reminded of it when I showed the Indonesian Catholics dancing. That edit went hard on X. I was. Oh, the one you posted today. Yeah. The the beat the beat was on point and I didn't even I didn't even like try too hard to sync it up, but it just automatically synced. It was just it was just meant to be. That was it. It was good. I mean that the, you know. Is it is it Slayer goes to church level? Have you seen that video? Uh-huh. Was that another. You should watch it later. Slayer goes to church where they took like Slayer music and then put scenes from Pentecostal. Oh, I think I have where he's like beating him with the uh, with the jacket. Yes, I have seen that video. Yes. Yes. Another classic is where they take White Zombie and they merge it with the uh, the Annie musical. You have all these kids danced into heavy metal. I I love that. I'm sorry. Um, Eddie says, "You missed my first super chat, too." Nope. It was just lagging in answering it. Uh, we just answered it just a second ago. Kenneth, uh, Father Steven D. Young, do you agree with Heiser's take on Gen 6 reading of, uh, Sons of God, Nephilim, and later Demons, Disembodied Nephilim?

Uh, mostly with the caveat that I think Heiser had the view that it was actually like angelic beings directly conceiving children with humans. Uh, which I think is incorrect. I think that's a way of describing certain rituals that involve demonic possession, usually of what we would call shrine or temple prostitutes uh, and succession rituals for kings. Um, the most recent modern version of that is every time there's a new Japanese emperor, uh, he spends the night with the sun goddess. Uh, meaning functionally it was a slave girl who was being uh, now the Japanese government has assured us that since World War II, there's no longer any sex in the ritual. Yes, they just. Which is tacitly admitting that until then. Right? Yes. There was um, so yeah, it's describing those kinds of pagan rituals. So. Once you have that understanding, you understand what happens with the Church Fathers where all the Church Fathers pretty much almost all of them before the year 400 all held that view that this is talking about demonic activity with women. And pretty much all the Church Fathers after like 4:30 switch to the Jewish view that this is talking about the children of Cain and the children of Seth. And if you read like St. John and St. John Cassian talking about it, they make arguments because they're aware of the fact that like St. Irenaeus accepted this and St. Justin Martyr accepted this. All of these previous writer fathers accepted it. Um, but they're arguing like, well, wait, how can an angelic being impregnate, right, a human woman, right? That doesn't work. And what's important is when that switch happens. If you look closely at when that switch happens, it's when paganism went away. Theodosius had shut down the pagan temples in 381. So the fathers before that were familiar with the pagan ritual life and with these sexual rituals and so they knew what that was talking about. Whereas the fathers once paganism is gone start like St. John Cassian makes the argument, well, if that was happening then, why isn't it happening now? And it's like, well, it was in Cambodia and Japan and China, right? But Christians had gotten rid of that sort of thing. Right? In in St. John Cassian's stuff. Um, so yeah.

Christ has to suffer according to both natures. Doing the math here. Is that four or is that eight? Divide, multiply. How do we do that? Right. He doesn't suffer according to both natures. He suffers according to his human nature. Remember what we were talking about with the two energies, right? It's still the one person doing the thing, but he does it according to one or the other. This is why you need the Chalcedonian definition because. They are distinct. I'm pretty sure by saying that you might have just fallen under an anathema by accident. Say that Christ suffered in his divinity. The divinity is impassible. It doesn't experience change. Right. Uh, was there a sacrifice in Genesis 3? Animal skins?

No. Nice. There's no there's no sacrificial language there. So, there's there's two separate things that happen there, right? They see animals die within the story, right? They didn't know what death was. They had never seen anything die. Right? So that's why they see animals die. They don't this is going to happen to you. Right? And then the garments of skin is referring to the change in their bodies to mortal flesh. Right? Their flesh was not mortal before the expulsion from paradise. They had a different type of body in the same way that in the resurrection we're going to have a different type of body. That's what St. Paul. Was going to say. So glad I'll just like come back with a six-pack and won't have to die. You come back come uh, well, you know what? If uh, you know, there was a there was an expost a little while ago or actually it was pretty recently that I thought was pretty funny. It was like all these uh all these like Novus Ordo Roman Catholics and all these Anglicans and guys like to praise Origen up and down, but ain't nobody praising him when when you're coming back as an orb. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. And if you combine that with the beatific vision, you're an orb staring at an orb. Yes. You are you are a Sam Shimone livestream perpetually. Orbs all the way down.

Uh, Eddie double sent in the super chat. Hey, I appreciate you. Thank you. Oh, I should I should fake skip this again. So, you send it in a third time. Uh, it was the same comment about the threatening his Protestant friends with PSA, but thank you. I appreciate the the support. Uh, Manny, father bless my 40-day-old son, Greek, he's in Greek Orthodox jurisdiction, was presented behind the iconostasis before Christ on the cross as part of the 40-day blessing. What is your take on the significance?

Um, so the I think the Greeks do this essentially the same way the Anogians do. Um, and that is we we bring we bring the child to the altar and then the priest brings the baby in front of the icon of Christ and prays uh, St. Simeon's prayer um, which is what in Vespers but also what's you know, Lord now let us thy servant depart in peace according to thy word um, that he said at Christ's uh presentation at the temple. So the reason the child is brought to the offer brought to the altar is you're sacrificing the baby to God uh, not in the uh, kill and eat sense but in the um, but in the sense of offering offering the child who God gave you back to God.

Uh, any favorites among the Optina elders? Lee Marius, I would say St. Marius. I think they're all good, but. There you go. Alter just. Yeah, you know. Yeah. Oh, he gets grouped in with the other ones, but come on. He didn't have anything going on. Uh, Altravoid says, "Wow, when you said giving up being a pastor with an ER was giving up something." I understand. A past. Giving up. I was a made all that money hanging wallpaper. And that's right. Yes. Yeah. That's what I That's what I was doing today. I had a waterproof lining to to go around instead of the uh instead of the borders there. But anyway, uh was giving up something. I understand now it was not just hair. It's true. It's a sacrifice of my hairline. This nice man sends you money and roasts you and we just ridicule him for his. Hey, I appreciate it. If you if you guys are gonna if you guys are gonna roast me about my hairline, do it. Do it with a super chat. That's awesome. Well, that's what that one that's what the one Lutheran guy would always do in the live.

streams, but he always has like a funny, a super funny roast every time he sent in a super chat with like a roast. Uh, that guy was hilarious. He would also email me with like funny photoshops of like something that happened on the live stream. That guy was funny.

Uh, Rock will live on. Father Father Steven said so. God bless y'all. Blessed Lent. Uh, fund for Alex to go live after this ends.

>> I would, but I think Nikolai is live right now.

>> Okay.

>> Well, there you go. Now we know who to raid after this is done.

>> I hope he has the the raid.

>> Why? Why is he trying to compete with us?

>> Yeah.

>> Wasn't he just here?

>> Setting up another shop on the other side of town trying to put us out of business.

>> Yeah. What are you doing, Nikolai? No. No.

Uh, yeah. I'll I'll I wonder if he has the raid thing turned on. Let me check that real quick.

>> I will.

>> Deep kimchi. Now,

>> I'll redirect to Mr. Nikolai's channel after this is done. Nikolai, if it pulls up, uh he might not have the setting turned on. He doesn't pull up for me. All right.

Um, does teach like Trent that monasticism is superior or good compared to? Oh, we just we just talked about that, didn't we? Oh, it's the same guy.

>> The clarifier.

>> It's the same guy. Yeah. One7 is often used as a proof text for this. Also, I've translated Father Steven D. Young's ROA into PT. Need a publisher. Jews AI.

>> What is PT?

>> That's what I was thinking. Like Portuguese.

>> Oh, that could be.

>> So, in terms of the translation, get in touch with Ancient Faith. Uh, they have the way their contracts work is I still own the contents of the book, but I have licensed it to them for publication on certain terms, right? In return for a percentage of the proceeds, they have the rights to publish it. If they don't ever let it go out of print for six months, I get it all back. But that's the contract. And so any publication of the material has to go through them. But it has been published in a number of other languages. So those deals can be worked out, uh, if you contact them. And yet, no orthodoxy does not teach that, uh, monasticism is better than marriage. Uh, one of those two is better for you.

>> You are called to one of those two, and for your salvation, you should do the one of those two that you're called to.

Um, just being obedient to Father Stephen D. Young. God bless you all and thank you for the stream.

>> You told him to give you more money.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. To keep me on. Jokes's on you. This is the last super chat. Woohoo. Brother Allan. $2 super chat. Hair grow.

>> You have to say it like Kenneth Copeland.

>> Yeah. How?

>> Grow. I mean, that clip is so funny because you see like, uh, a black dude like in the front, and he's just like looking around and he's like, "Is everybody doing this?" Like, do I go along with the peer pressure or not?

>> Okay, we have a real last final super chat. Is Melchisedec a type of Christ?

>> Yes.

>> There you go.

>> Well, that's actually Malachi Zedek. I

>> just gonna say,

>> but Melchisedec is assuming that's who it means. Malachi Zedek. Nice.

>> Well, since since it's Lent and you're probably going to like, natural food store, you could just get some chia seeds and like smear them on to fill out, right?

>> That's good. I'll take I'll take that. But then it'll just be green sprouts on the top of my head. I'll look like, uh, I'll look like I just crawled out from under my floorboards.

>> Well, you could get the the spray and spray it to match color, right?

>> That's true. I think I think if you're at that point, you just got to do like the Tim Pool beanie thing. You know what I mean? I gotta I gotta get like some cleave logo on a beanie and that'll just become a part of the show or something. Or a big sombrero.

>> Or just a big thick bandana. You can do the

>> That's true.

>> You'll get accused of Hispanic cultural appropriation probably.

>> Or being like a 90s metal guy, you know, just grab all the hair with the bandana. That'd be good.

>> Everyone essay. Yeah. Nice.

>> Is it?

>> Well, I I appreciate you all for coming on the show. Uh, this has been an excellent, excellent, excellent stream. Uh, where can they find y'all at? Everybody go and subscribe to these guys here.

>> Everybody knows where to find all my stuff. It's everywhere.

>> Alex Soren on YouTube. Alex Ortooxy on Twitter, on Instagram. X. Now, I guess I have a debate March 27th on the Transfigured Life YouTube channel coming up with the other Paul on whether Iconoclast is apostolic. So March 27th, 8:00 PM Eastern time, Transfigured Life YouTube channel. Check it out.

>> I'm on YouTube with, uh, the handle Idol Killer, I D O L K I L L E R. And I'm not an iconoclast. That's not what that's about. It's about the idols in our hearts and lives. So, uh, a lot of people are like, "What are you doing on there, Warren?" Your channel name.

>> You really hated Kelly Clarkson.

>> I so did. I did.

>> But you you guys can check me out on Idol Killer. I do all sorts of weird stuff, and you're all gonna probably be asked to endorse it all now that I've been on here. So, you're welcome.

>> There you go. Well, thanks for coming on, Warren, Alex, Father Stephen. This has been an excellent stream, and thank you all so much for watching. God bless.