DEBATE: is the FILIOQUE TRUE? (Kevin Hughes vs Andy Persuaded)

[00:00:25][music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat.

[00:01:00]In him was life and the [music] light was the light of man. Light shineth in darkness. Darkness comprehended it not.

[00:01:13]>> At the Vatican, [music] Pope Leo the 14th also took time on Sunday to address the conflict with Iran and to admonish those [music] who wage war.

[00:01:24]Good morning, [music] Glad. Well, the compound of the Holy Family Church in northern Gaza was hit by an apparent Israeli strike this morning. As you pointed out, it [music] is the only Catholic church uh in the Gaza Strip.

[00:01:38][music] >> Hello, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. [music] Amen.

[00:01:50][music] Christian. [music] Hello. Hello. Welcome everybody. Welcome to the show. I'm of course here with the debaters. Today I introduced to you guys Andy um from [clears throat] Persuaded Apologetics and Kevin Hughes who will in fact be representing his position today which I do believe is the Eastern Orthodox position if I'm not mistaken.

[00:02:34]Uh Mr. Hughes. [clears throat] So, I'm excited uh to have you guys debate and we can we're going to go over a debate today uh on the filioquay, right? And so, the the point here is going to be to establish uh a case for the filio or against the filio depending on who you are, whether you're the affirmative or the negating claim. Um [clears throat] we're going to begin with a prayer uh and then I'm going to ask the gentlemen to introduce themselves right respectively and then from there uh we will begin the format formal debating formatted formal debate.

[00:03:10]Okay. So I'm just going to begin with a prayer and then we'll go from there. All right. In the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be world without end. Amen.

[00:03:22]Our father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from all evil. Amen.

[00:03:40]Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Please Lord uh grant strength to both these gentlemen as they speak in pursuit of your truth. Amen. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. All right. Um since Andy, you're the affirmative, go ahead and introduce >> Go ahead and introduce yourself. Uh and then I'll give the floor over to Mr. Hebrews.

[00:04:20]>> Yeah. So, most of you guys know me. I'm Andy. I run the um apologetics t channel, Persuaded Apologetics. I'm happy to see everybody here. Go give me a follow. But more importantly, if you're not following James, give him a follow. And Maria's already dropped the link. If you could donate to his ministry, he does wonderful work.

[00:04:39]Go donate. That's all I've got to say.

[00:04:42]>> Mr. Hughes.

[00:04:45]>> Uh, usually I don't introduce myself.

[00:04:47]The, uh, moderator does. So, um I don't know. I live in the lovely Pacific Northwest where I attend Holy Apostles Orthodox Church in Vancouver, Washington. And I love walking my dog every day and spending time with my cats. Um and most of all, I love to spend time with my wife and my beautiful daughter, Summerland. So, uh that's me.

[00:05:14]>> All right. Beautiful, man. Uh yes. Um, typically I would introduce you or I would introduce the other, but my pursuit at this moment is impartiality.

[00:05:25]I already know you're against a high tide here in so far as I'm a Catholic channel and you're debating a Catholic.

[00:05:31]I'm trying to remain as neutral as possible and hence my reasoning for that. Nevertheless, um, [clears throat] we will be doing a Q&A section at the end, right? uh we will be prioritizing super chats. All right. So, uh people have super chats, you know what to do.

[00:05:52]So on and so forth. On that note, I will be muted. I will unmute for the one minute mark. Uh Andy and Mr. Hughes, I will unmute for the one minute mark. Let me just get the clock up. And as I understand, the opening is 15 minutes.

[00:06:12]So there we go.

[00:06:15]And then all right should on my phone. All right.

[00:06:38]Now I'm going to uh just put you in the green room.

[00:06:42]uh Hughes and I'm going to do the the same for myself or I'm actually going to turn off my camera. Andy, whenever you speak, I will begin the clock. I will unmute at the one minute mark and I'll say one minute.

[00:06:55]>> Perfect. Do you mind uh putting my slides up on uh the display?

[00:06:59]>> Sure.

[00:07:00]>> Thank you.

[00:07:01]>> Not a problem. All right.

[00:07:05][snorts] [clears throat and cough] this.

[00:07:08]Do this.

[00:07:16]Perfect. There we go. All right. So, before I begin, I'd like to thank James, our host, uh, and moderator. Kevin, thank you for being my opponent. And to those who helped me in constructing my debate. And last, of course, but not least, is uh the audience for being present. When I began preparing for this debate, I'll be honest with you, I wasn't 100% sure what to expect. What I found the further that I went is that this isn't really that much of a debate at all. Still, right now, I have no idea why an Orthodox Christian would want to debate the filioquay. Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians agree that the deposit of faith is not only found in scripture, but also in the fathers, in sacred tradition. And when you look at the testimony of scripture and the fathers even individually a clear picture begins to form almost immediately.

[00:08:09]Where I want to begin is the second council of black which uh was convened as a response to the second council of Leons. Here they reinforce their position on the filioquay and make a definitive statement regarding the place in the church of those who affirm the filioquay. Black Renee reads as such and this is the fourth cannon. To the same who affirm that the pariclete which is from the father has its existence through the son and from the son and who again propose as proof the phrase the spirit exists through the son and from the son. We cut them off from the membership of the orthodox and we banish them from the flock of the church of god. This council mixed with what I will show you today will be extremely eye-opening and I hope to present this with clarity so that this debate gives the viewer focus on the issue and not more confusion. What I want to avoid when going into the into the fathers is arbitrarily hurling quotes your way. I'm not here to just simply quote mine. So, I'm going to be using the eight fathers highlighted in red that you see on your screen now who the council of Constantinople 2 claims to follow in every way. Session one reads, "We further declare that we hold fast to the decree of the four councils and in every way follow the holy fathers. Athanasius, Hillary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nissa, Ambrose, Theopilus, John of Constantinople, Sirill, Augustine, Proclas, Leo, and their writings on the true faith. The question that we want to ask is how many of these fathers would Black Renee seek to excommunicate for teaching the filioquay? Especially since half of the fathers we will discuss today are Easterners and two of these easterners are Capidocians. So without further ado, let's dig in. So the first person I want to bring up, of course, is St. Augustine of Hippo. Let's start off strong. I mean, it's not going to get weaker throughout here, but let's start with St. Augustine. It's no secret that St. Augustine does teach the um does teach the filioquay, and it's also no secret that Augustine is not really the favorite saint of most Orthodox Christians. And that reason, of course, is obvious that Augustine does teach the filioquay. Many Orthodox apologists have in response taken to writing him off as if he is a saint only by virtue of a holy life and not because of his theology. Also, it doesn't seem to me that the Orthodox really have the privilege to do this without claiming to be more wise than the bishops at Constantinople too who profess their complete agreement with the writings of St. Augustine. In date trinitate Augustine says this. For if the son has of the father whatever he has then certainly he has of the father that the holy spirit proceeds also from him. And this is from on the trinity. This quote is significant for two reasons. Number one it's a blanket of affirmation of the filioquay. And number two it vindicates the way that the Catholic Church reads John chapter 16. If the father confers everything he has to the son then this necessarily includes active spiration making Jesus Christ together with the father one principle of the holy spirit.

[00:11:26]In fact the father's uh the father confers all that he logically can which is everything but paternity. This is the church's interpretation of the passage and St. Augustine agrees. He teaches the same thing. Now throughout these slides I've kind of built these uh these maps.

[00:11:44]Forgive me, I'm not the best at making slides, but throughout I'm going to show you where each of these fathers live, and at the end I'll have a map that shows them all together.

[00:11:55]Um, the next saint that we're going to be going over is going to be St. Hillary of Poiier. In St. Hillary's foundational work on the Trinity, he says, "Concerning the Holy Spirit, I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak. Still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain.

[00:12:13]There is no need to speak because we are bound to confess him proceeding as he does from father and son. When Hillary says we are bound to confess him proceeding as he does from the father and the son. The Latin phrase is quatrelio confendus s. The word preceding here is octoibus.

[00:12:36]Hillary is no stranger to using that word and its variations. In fact, he uses the word in the his work on the trinity no less than a dozen times.

[00:12:46]Every single time to denote eternal and hypothatic procession. Further, book two up to this point has been about the heresy of modalism, which is a heresy that challenges whether there are any hypothatic processions in God at all. So my question to Kevin and any Orthodox who may watch this, why would Hillary write against a heresy which denies hypothatic procession in God and then randomly bring up economic procession and do this using language that he has consistently used to denote hypothic procession. That makes no sense. And by the way, here is St. Hillary on a map.

[00:13:24]St. Athanasius is going to be the next saint. St. Athanasius in his first letter to Sarapion says this again. As the father is fountain and the son is called river, we are said to drink of the spirit. I mean the image and the radiance fountain and river essence and expression. As the son is in the spirit as his own image, so also the father is in the son. So uh to believe that there is one sanctification which is derived from the father through the son in the holy spirit. What is most most notable here is that the spirit is said by St. Athanasius to be the image of the son.

[00:14:02]Nobody ever says of any father any human father that he is the image of his son but rather that his son is the image of his father. This is also true for sacred revelation that God the father is never said to be the image of the son but only that the son is the express image of the father.

[00:14:21]We do not say that the father is the image of the son because image denotes not only likeness and similarity but also origin. So when it is said that the son is in the is is the image of the father we read this not only as an expression of similarity between the father and the son but also of origin.

[00:14:40]Likewise when it is said that the spirit is the image of the son we see not only a similarity but necessarily origin.

[00:14:48]And here is St. Athanasius on a map down in Alexandria.

[00:14:53]The fourth person I'm going to bring up is St. Pope Leo the Great. In homaly 75, St. Pope Leo says this, "And while in the property of each person, the Father is one, the Son is another, and the Holy Ghost is another, yet the Godhead is not distinct and different. For while the son is the only begotten of the father, the holy spirit of the father and the son, not in the way that every creature is the creature of the father and the son, but as living and having power with both and eternally subsisting of that which is the father and the son. We can know that St. Leo is immediately speaking about the hypothatic processions because he makes a distinction immediately between that which is predicated to each individual person of the trinity and that which is predicated to the godhead.

[00:15:41]He becomes more clear when he speaks of begottenness which is the manner in which the son proceeds. In the same sentence he says that the holy spirit is of the father and the son. At the end of the quote he says that the spirit eternally subsists of that which is the father and the son. And this last sentence is absolutely devastating for my opponent. Since St. Leo explicitly says what the Latins say regarding the filioquay in theology, hypostasis is the actual existence and subsistence is the ordering of substance to individual existence. The father is the ultimate cause of the son and the spirit. But in the ordering of um but in the ordering of the spirit to actual existence, the spirit proceeds from the father and the son. Here is St. Leo on a map of course in Rome. Gregory of Nissa who is a Capidocian. He's not just an eastern father. He's one of the most important saints for the Eastern Orthodox. Um in his work adlabium says for the attribute of kingship denotes all dignity. And our God it says is king from everlasting.

[00:16:44]But the son having all things which are the fathers is himself proclaimed a king by the holy scripture. Now the divine scripture says that the holy spirit is the uncction of the only begotten interpreting the dignity of the spirit by a transference of the terms commonly used in this world. For this reason that the scripture that the dignity of the holy spirit might be more clearly shown to men. He was called by the scripture the sign of the kingdom and uncction whereby we are taught that the holy scripture or that the holy spirit shares in the glory and kingdom of the only begotten son of god. And for this reason he is properly called Christ since this name gives the proof of his inseparable and indivisible conjunction with the Holy Spirit. If then the only begotten God is the anointed and the Holy Spirit is his uncction then the appellation of anointed appoints to the kingly authority or points to the kingly authority and the anointing is the token of his kingship. Then the Holy Spirit shares also in his dignity. If therefore they say that the attribute of Godhead is significative of dignity and the Holy Spirit is shown to share in this last quality, it follows that he who partakes in the dignity will also partake in the name which represents it. I know this is kind of a wordy quote, but follow me. Um it it's all it's all going to make sense as soon as I explain this. The father uh possesses to himself all dignity and the son proceeds from the father. Thus the fullness of this dignity is conferred to him. And then goes on to say or at least St. Gregory goes on to say that the spirit is said to share in the fullness of this dignity by virtue of his eternal relation to the son. It gets even worse when St. Gregory says that the attribute of godhead is significative of his dignity or of dignity. Godhead to the fathers of course simply means the fullness of divinity. If dignity is attributed to the divine essence and the holy spirit is said to receive his dignity through his indivisible conjunction with the son then I'm not sure how you can deny that that St. Gregory teaches the filioquay. By the way of course he's a capidosian. So here he is on the map. St. Ambrose of Milan is the next one. Um St. Ambrose of Milan teaches or says in his work on the Holy Spirit, but if you are willing to learn that the Son of God knows all things and has fornowledge of all of all things that are to be those things which you think are unknown to the Son, the Holy Spirit received from the Son. Moreover, he received through unity of substance, just as the Son received from the Father. He says, "He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine and will declare it to you." All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine.

[00:19:45]Therefore, I said that he shall receive of mine and will declare it to you. That then is more evident or what then is more evident than this unity. The things that the father has are the sons and the son has the spirit also received or what the son has the spirit has also received. Once again the catholic reading of scripture is vindicated.

[00:20:07]Orthodox often present Jesus's words on the spirit receiving of Christ as economic and that the giving of all the father has to Christ as hypothatic. And what makes a lot of orthodox, [laughter] you know, what makes a lot of orthodox sound like, you know, silly billies is that these two statements are not only in the same verse, but they're the same sentence. Really, the way the orthodox read the verse is unnatural and it's post hawk. It's a panic move. St. Ambrose along with the rest of the fathers connect the two statements as a chain of processions. By the way, here is St. Ambrose on a map. We're going to be talking about St. Sirill of Alexandria. St. serial and it's theorist consubstantial trinitate says therefore if Christ by renewing uh and transferring to us life is said to renew by the spirit according to the psalmist send forth your spirit and they shall be created and you shall renew the face of the earth. It is necessary to confess that the spirit is of the substance of the son. For as he naturally exists from him and is sent by him into creation to enact renewal. This indeed fullness and perfection of the Holy Trinity. If this is so, then the spirit is God and from God and not a creature.

[00:21:26]>> So here's >> him on a map. We're going to talk about Basil of Kaiseria. Um he says perhaps the word of piety transmits that he is the second to the son in dignity having his being from him and receiving from him announcing to us an entirely dependent upon his cause. This is one part of a larger argument St. Basil is making. St. Basil fighting the eunomians defends against the claim that the spirit is not divine since he is third in dignity. St. Basil argues that the Holy Spirit is only third in dignity according to his processions and that he is the third person and the second person to proceed. If St. Basil only said that the spirit has his being from Christ, that would be devastating enough. However, the broader case he is making about hypothatic processions deals seals the deal and makes it virtually undeniable. Now, one thing I wanted to bring up if I have time because I'm running a little bit >> time. Time unless uh let me bring up Mr. Hughes and ask him.

[00:22:27]Uh one second.

[00:22:29]Do you want to grant him to finish and I will do the same for you? It's up to you.

[00:22:33]>> No. I might have been inclined to do that if he hadn't started by saying why would I want to be here debating when he challenged me to this debate. That's extremely dishonest and I don't appreciate it.

[00:22:45]>> I I'm I'm remaining outside of this. But uh so Andy, you're thank you very much for your time and I put you down.

[00:22:52]>> Uh let me do this >> and then laughs at me too.

[00:22:57]>> All right. Let me do this for a moment and then I'm going to turn off my camera as I did for him and my sound >> and let me just start up the clock for you.

[00:23:08]>> You got it.

[00:23:09]>> The moment you begin to speak, brother, I'm going I'm going to hit the start button and of course I'll unmute and turn on the camera at the one minute mark.

[00:23:16]>> You got it. Thanks, James.

[00:23:18]>> Go for it.

[00:23:21]>> In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Oh heavenly king, the comforter, the spirit of truth, who is everywhere present and filling all things, treasury of good gifts and giver of life. Come and abide in us and cleanse us from all impurity and save our souls. Oh good one.

[00:23:36]I would like to begin by thanking James, our moderator, and by thanking Andy for inviting me to participate or rather challenging me to this debate. Uh he asked me to be here again. I believe it is important to begin by defining what exactly we are debating as well as what we are not debating. St. Maximus the confessor is very clear that the church would have no problem with the idea that the spirit proceeds from the father through the son since Jesus is the one mediator between God and man. In other words, he is the only way that we can know the trinity at all. Dimmitri Steniloy also has made it equally clear that the church has no real problem with the phrase to the son as this phrase is petristic and is actually what undergurs a lot of the quotes that Andy brought up and references the beautiful reality of the interpersonal relationship within the trinity as well as the reality that the church herself can only have access to the Holy Spirit because we are the body of Christ and the spirit is the spirit of Christ. Though we would never violate the ecumenical councils by adding these phrases to the creed as will be discussed below, we would have no theological problem with those statements per se. That said, the councils of Leon and Florence reject both of these options, instead defining the filioquay specifically as a double hypoatic procession. These pseudo councils to their credit do attempt to preserve the ancient and orthodox teaching of the monarchy of the father by saying functions as a single principle. However, as St. Fodius the Great and St. Mark of Ephesus both point out, it is difficult to see how this statement can be justified. St. Fodius rightly points out that to claim that the father beggets the son is already one principle. To then say that the father and the son together spirate the holy spirit is a second principle thus creating a diad that produces a third rather than a trinity. Even more damning, the Capidosian fathers whose trinitarianism is embraced by the second ecumenical council, the council of first Constantinople, are very clear that properties within the trinity are either personal properties and therefore distinct to only one member of the trinity or are shared properties and thus shared by all. So with regards to the shared properties, all three are members of the godhead. All three are omnisient, creative, omnipotent, eternal, etc. But with regards to the person, what makes the father the father is that he is the beer of the son and the spirator of the spirit. In other words, he is the monarch of the trinity. What makes the son the son is that he is begotten from the father as a single source or principle. And what makes the Holy Spirit the spirit is that he proceeds from the father as from one single principle. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ referenced this single principle when he said, "But when the Spirit, excuse me, but when the helper comes whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me, and you also will bear witness because you have been with me from the beginning." John 15:26 and 27.

[00:27:07]If the filioquay were true, this would have been the perfect moment for Jesus to teach it clearly since he even testifies to the fact that he sends the spirit and yet he does not do so instead clarifying that the spirit proceeds from the father alone. Additionally, it is noteworthy that long before the filioquay was a debate, the fathers of the second ecumenical council condemned anyone who would add to or take away from the faith delivered in that council by even one syllable. The filioquay is a full word and four syllables. If the filioquay were true, it seems odd that it took so many centuries for anyone to see it and even stranger that the Holy Spirit led the ecumenical councils not only to not embrace the filioquay but in fact to anathematize adding to the creed a creed which did not have the filioquay. It should come as no surprise then that both in the east and the west the church rejected the doctrine of the filioquay which first became prominent in Spain having been introduced by the Franks in an effort to create a distinct western culture as well as to combat aryanism which had become powerful in their region. In response to the Franks, it was actually a bishop of Rome who courageously stood against their error, notably doing so despite needing their political support. Pope Leo III wrote letters to the Franks urging them not to add to the creed and even had two shields commissioned which he displayed at the Vatican. These shields displayed the Nyine Constantinopolic creed in both Latin and Greek as the shield of faith.

[00:28:49]Conspicuously absent from the creed in both languages was the filioquay. Thus showing Rome's commitment to upholding the Orthodox faith at that time.

[00:29:00]Again in 879 and 8 to 880 a senate was held to deal with this issue.

[00:29:07]Interestingly it was actually the patriarch of the west who set the tone at that senate. Father John Strickland writes, "The most remarkable outcome of the Senate of 879 to 880 was an anathema issued against the advocates of the Filioquay. John VII himself set the tone for the church's defense of the original creed in a letter written to Fodius. The Pope spoke unconditionally. We assure you concerning this issue, John declared, which has been such a scandal to the church that we not only recite the creed in its original form, but also condemn those foolish people who have had the presumption to act otherwise.

[00:29:45]John VII would also do his apostolic namesake quoted above proud when he later condemned the advocates of the filioquay as quote violators of the divine words and distorters of the teachings of Christ the Lord and of the fathers who transmitted the creed to us through the holy councils.

[00:30:05]One of the reasons this doctrine is so problematic as to warrant these strong words is because as St. Podius the great warned the filioquay subordinates the holy spirit. This is why the holy spirit is radically downplayed in much of the west compared to the orthodox church.

[00:30:22]This is often manifested in the fact that most western Christians whether catholic or protestant tend to lack a robust doctrine of the holy spirit. Many see the spirit merely as a principle or force. Many who are more theologically trained will still depersonalize the Holy Spirit by calling him merely the love between the Father and the Son.

[00:30:45]Others like Todd Fel of Wretched Radio actually boast that mainline Protestantism having little to no discussion of the Holy Spirit is a good thing because he argues the Holy Spirit's job is to exalt Christ.

[00:30:58]Therefore, the people who are full of the Holy Spirit will exalt Christ and will not talk about the Holy Spirit himself, at least not very much. There are even some liberal Protestant and Catholic scholars who assert that the Holy Spirit is a woman, sometimes going so far as to say that the theotocos is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Others like James Martin make such blasphemous remarks about the Holy Spirit, I dare not repeat them here. But sadly, there is no John VII in the Vatican today to oppose this evil. Predictably, the problem of the Western downplaying of the Holy Spirit led to a lack of vital relationship with him. This resulted in some evangelical Protestants trying to recover the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

[00:31:44]A noble effort to be sure. But sadly, instead of looking to the church and finding where the Holy Spirit was and always had been working, these Protestants, leaning on their own understanding, spent hours of prayer in a California basement and started one of the strangest movements in history, even reviving the heresy of Montism, which is a heresy that has nothing to do with the state of Montana, nor with Miley Cyrus.

[00:32:10]This strange fire was perfectly avoidable by simply rejecting the foundation that led to it. Or better yet, would have been avoided by the West having chosen to hold fast to the tradition handed down to you from us, whether by our word or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15. instead of developing theological novelties that led to heresy, scholasticism, endless schism, rationalism, and eventually the West's fall into neihilism as documented by age of division by Strickland and age of nealism by the same and unintended reformation by Gregory.

[00:32:47]Jesus says to judge a tree by its fruit, and the fruit of the filioquay is rotten to the core. Even if, god forbid, Andy could convince me that the filioquay was sound doctrinally, it isn't, as I've demonstrated here, he could never convince me that it belongs in the creed. After all, the only reason the filioquay appears in his creed is because a bishop of Rome decided he had greater authority than ecumenical councils consiliarity, the church that Jesus Christ established and arrogantly set himself against his own predecessors like John VII and Leo III who had heroically upheld the Orthodox faith up to that time. The good news is that we are not bound to repeat the mistakes of the West. we can return to Christ and to his church and live. So come and see.

[00:33:37]Come and experience the church Jesus Christ established. Come and visit the divine liturgy at your local Orthodox parish today. And you can experience not only the correct doctrine of the spirit, but far more importantly, you can experience knowing the Holy Spirit personally and being transformed by him.

[00:33:55]And I wasn't going to say this before, but I will end my presentation by simply saying that um since my opponent wants to laugh at and mock the Orthodox position, I have no interest in doing that towards you Catholics. Rather, I pray for you every day.

[00:34:14]And I pray for my opponent as well, even as he mocks me because that's what Christ calls us to do is to pray for our enemies. That's all I have to say.

[00:34:24]So, in fact, you're conceding the rest of your time. Thank you, Mr. Hughes.

[00:34:28]Very kind of you. Um, uh, let me bring back Andy. Let me go like this.

[00:34:35]Back Andy. Okay. The next section of the formal debate is going to be the 7 minute rebuttals as uh tendency of YouTube debates.

[00:34:50]uh super chats in the form of questions for the Q&A section will take priority.

[00:34:53]I just needed to say that once and now I have. Uh so [clears throat] Andy, >> whenever you begin to speak, give me one second. Let me set the timer for you.

[00:35:05]I'm going to give you seven minutes.

[00:35:07][clears throat] All right, 7 minutes on the clock. When you begin to speak, I will start the timer at 1 minute left. I will in fact uh turn on the camera and turn on the microphone and tell you got one minute left. All right. I'm not going to keep reiterating that. Is that okay with you, Mr. Hughes?

[00:35:27]I'm not going to keep reiterating that.

[00:35:29]That one minute mark thing. I'm just going to turn on >> You don't I've done lots of these debates. You don't have to uh reiterate anything for me. Thank you, though.

[00:35:37]>> Okay, cool. All right. So, I'm going to go on mute and I'm going to turn off my camera whenever you begin to speak. If you don't mind, uh Mr. Hughes, just turn off your camera just for this section.

[00:35:46]I'll have him do the same for your section. Okay. Uh, whenever you're ready, Andy, go ahead.

[00:35:52]>> All right. So, this might be a relatively short rebuttal because I'm [clears throat] not really sure that Mr. Hughes has really actually dealt with the issue. He hasn't really made any arguments or borne out any arguments against the filioquay. I mean, his first attempt was talking about how Christ affirms that the spirit is from the father. I find this really odd because saying that the spirit is from the father doesn't deny that the spirit is also from the son. We agree that the spirit is from the father. So I'm not really sure why he thinks that if Christ affirms the spirit is from the father that means I lose filioquay doesn't make any sense. Um also there's the issue of a late dogmatic proclamation of the filioquay. I also don't understand why that would be an issue you know and Mr. Hughes and I would agree that scripture is an essential part of the deposit of faith. But for the Catholic faith, the canon of scripture was not dogmatized until like the 16th century. And I'm not even really sure that the Orthodox Church have has dogmatized a canon of scripture. So like what am I supposed to say? Am I supposed to say, oh well the well the Orthodox not only do they have a late dogmatization of a canon, but they have no dogmatization necessarily of a canon. And so then therefore their canon must not be true. That seems really really silly silly. And then also like how late is too late? There's not really a standard there. I mean the divinity of Christ which is like the central claim of the Christian faith wasn't formally dogmatized until the 4th century. Is that some weird argument that the Jehovah's Witness can use or the Mormons can use against the Christian faith? I think that the way that Mr. Hughes would answer that question is the same way that I would answer his objection is that you're not really showing that anything follows.

[00:37:46]So, I'm not 100% sure what your point is. Um, he spends a lot of time arguing about the creed. I'm not interested in arguing about the creed. This debate is not about the creed. Mr. Hughes, if you want to say that the creed should not have included the filioquay, you can say that for as much of the debate as you would like. Because the reality is is that I'm not here to debate whether or not it ought to have been added to the creed. I'm here to debate whether or not the filio way is true. There are a lot of things that me and Mr. Hughes would both agree on that are not in the creed.

[00:38:21]Right? We both believe in the in the canonicity of the book of Matthew and we could debate that with somebody but has nothing to do about whether the book of Matthew being canon is in the creed or not has nothing to do with that right we both agree and Mary is sinless but the sinlessness of Mary is not in the creed so if Mr. Hughes demonstrates, which I don't think he has, or he could, that the filioquay doesn't belong in the creed. I have no idea what that has to do with whether or not the filioquay is true or not. Um, he says that the filioquay subordinates the Holy Spirit.

[00:38:56]However, when Basil explicitly teaches the filioke, he also affirms alongside his teaching of the filioke that the Holy Spirit, the son and the father, the only way that they differ in rank in dignity is by the number of their procession and that the Holy Spirit is the second procession, that the son is the first procession, and that the father is um that the father is unbegotten. He does not proceed. And so, it doesn't seem that St. Basil had an issue with the hierarchy uh within the trinity that the holy spirit is somehow subordinated while he was teaching the filioquay that doesn't seem to be an issue for him and then the most puzzling thing is that he seems to have an issue with the idea that the holy spirit is the love of the father and the son. I'm not sure if he's ever read first John but 1 John chapter 4 teaches that the essence of god is love. So, I'm not sure if he's upset that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is essentially God or not. I'm not sure what the argument is here. And then the last thing I'm going to say before letting him come up here is that people today say crazy stuff. And look, I'm I'm with Kevin all the way that Father James Martin is problematic.

[00:40:16]But I mean, you can't throw rocks while living in a glass house. Like, do you think, Kevin, that I that you would be swayed if I sat here and I quote Bartholomew, right? I'm I'm sure most Orthodox don't really like Bartholomew because a lot of what he says sounds like inclusivism. And so, like, if I just sat here and said, "Oh, well, the Orthodox faith, you know, the filio way has to be true because look at all these people in the Orthodox faith who are, you know, all these people in the Orthodox faith who are saying unhinged stuff. People are going to say unhinged stuff. This tracks throughout all Christian history, right? Aras set on hinge stuff. Notorious set on hidden stuff. Sibilius set on hinge stuff. Most of these guys were Catholics to begin with. This is not really something new.

[00:41:00]And the church deals with heresies as they come. So, I'm not sure when you say that there's a Catholic or Catholics who exist within the corpus of like 1.6 6 billion Catholics. Like what what makes you think that there being unhinged people in that group of Catholics somehow disproves the filio?

[00:41:20]Kevin, does it also disprove the divinity of Jesus Christ? Because there are crazy Catholics who say crazy things like now now that there's crazy Catholics who are saying crazy things, everything that the Catholic Church believes, including the filio way, is suddenly not true. when most of our faith overlaps, Kevin. So, I don't really know what these anecdotal arguments have to do with the filioquay.

[00:41:42]You're going to have to help me with that. Anyways, I'll concede the rest of my time.

[00:41:48]>> All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

[00:41:51]So, let's do this. Uh Kevin, if you want to Yes. Thank you. Um Andy, go ahead and turn off your camera, brother. Kevin, the moment if you don't mind that I call you Kevin. Um it's rather informal. Um uh whenever you begin.

[00:42:07]>> Thank you. When when you begin, I'll start the clock.

[00:42:11]>> Sure thing. Thank you.

[00:42:13]>> Um so first of all, he says in his intro that he won't engage in quote mining and then proceeds to do a whole bunch of quote mining. Um, I'm not going to address all of the quote mining because when people do this quote mining, all they really want to do is load you down with a bunch of quotes knowing you won't be able to answer all of them and then they can say, "Aha, you didn't address my argument." So, I don't play this game. I respect these fathers too much to just isolate their quotes and misrepresent them. Um, he also says, "This isn't a debate. Why are we having this debate?" Well, I don't know. you challenged me. You tell me why we're here. Um he says that he claims the Capidosians are teaching the filioquay. Um this is fascinating because Dr. David Bradshaw actually has a really excellent lecture series explaining why the Capidosians are absolutely not filioquists. So I would refer people to that. Dr. David does a much better job than I will at explaining this issue. He quotes St. Augustine, I would simply uh I would simply point you to St. Phodias the Great who says of St. Augustine that you call him a father and in this you do well. Um but if he is your father, why do you repeat the sin of Ham rather than the virtue of Shem and Japheth? If Augustine is your father, then cover his errors as Shem and Japheth covered their father's nakedness rather than exposing and going even worse than Ham by imitating the errors of your father. Uh so I would cite that. I would also point out that uh if as St. Fodia says, if we imitate the virtues of St. Augustine, we will not imitate his vices such as the filioquay.

[00:44:16]Uh if we want to go down that road, St. Augustine also teaches predestination and all kinds of other things that I would hope Andy understands are problematic.

[00:44:30]Um he says, uh he he made a big deal about where these fathers are located.

[00:44:37]Uh, I really couldn't care less. He talks about Hillary of Poier. Um, again, you know, I would I would bring up the uh Fodious argument there for that one.

[00:44:51]He brings up an Athanasius quote that does not teach the filioquay. Uh, the spirit being the spirit of Christ, as I mentioned in my opening statement, isn't what's being debated here. We don't have a problem with that. Uh again, Gregory of Nissa, St. Basel of of uh Kaiseria, these figures, um there's lots of good discussion on why they don't teach the filioquay. So, uh he says in his rebuttal that I'm not dealing with the issue and then that I haven't made an argument, then proceeds to uh try to deal with my arguments um that I didn't make. But he actually conceded the debate saying, "This debate isn't about the creed. I don't care if it should be in the creed." Well, that conceds the debate because for us, that's the biggest issue. He says, "How late is too late?" Um, anything past apostolic is too late. Uh, we [clears throat] receive the faith from the apostles. Uh, I don't know if he realizes that holy orthodoxy is against the idea that doctrines can change over time. Uh his last argument was a straw man completely mis either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting my point. Uh my point was never that the fact that guys like James Martin exist refutes everything Catholics believe. My point was that you can trace how just as St. Vodius the Great warned would happen. You can actually trace how that warning came to pass and has received its ultimate fulfillment not only in people like James Martin but also people like Todd Fel and and others. Um you can see how the doctrine of the filioquay led to the exact things that St. Fodius warned of because by subordinating the Holy Spirit, it has left open this floodgate for theological errors related to the subordination of the spirit. So um I realize that he he did leave open the possibility that he didn't understand my argument. So maybe that is the case. Maybe he didn't understand what I was saying or maybe he's just misrepresenting me. I really don't care.

[00:47:15]Um, the point is that it didn't actually address what I said. It addressed a straw man of what I said. So, thank you.

[00:47:24]I concede the rest of my time.

[00:47:27]>> All right. All right. All right. Okay.

[00:47:30]Gentlemen, we have now come to the crossexamination segment of this formal debate. Auntie, if you don't mind turning on your camera, that would be great.

[00:47:40]Um, all right, gentlemen.

[00:47:41][clears throat] Strict rules. And I'm I'm I'm going to do my best to remain impartial. I actually have a pretty good reputation for remaining impartial in debates as a moderator. I'm going to do the same here. Um so, uh Mr. Hughes or Kevin rather, when he asks you questions, of course, you know the drill. You can't ask a question, right?

[00:48:01]You need to answer the question. You're the one that's being interrogated, right, at the moment, so to speak. If you should produce a clarifying question, of course, we will grant.

[00:48:11]Okay. Um, the same is going to apply to you, Andy. Um, if filibustering should occur, uh, I'm going to intervene. I will take the initiative and pause the time so that no one can, uh, lose out on valuable cross-examination time. And yeah, uh, let's let's and let's keep it fruitful. And guys in the chat, uh, the brother Kevin is in a hostile environment. He's on a Catholic channel debating his position as an Eastern Orthodox. Let's let's show some love.

[00:48:42]I'm not saying you guys are being harsh in the chat. I'm saying let's just show some love. Um it takes a lot of gull, a lot of strength, a lot of fortitude to be here. Um so let's show them some love. Um [clears throat] so, uh yeah. All right. Uh whenever you're ready, let me just set up the clock. Let me just set up the clock here. Get you guys 20 minutes. I'm not going to turn off my camera this time. I'm just going to uh mute my mic. And I will be in fact listening attentively. So Andy, the moment you begin, I will begin the clock and the same will be iterated for you as well. Uh Kevin, go ahead.

[00:49:25]All right, Kevin. Uh this is just a preliminary question. Tell me if I'm wrong. Did Fodius die in communion with Rome?

[00:49:37]Yes, Rome was at the time still in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[00:49:41]>> All right, cool. All right, so do you do you ascent to uh the first seven ecumenical councils?

[00:49:47]>> Yes.

[00:49:49]>> Would you argue with Nika 1?

[00:49:51]>> Nope.

[00:49:52]>> No. Would you argue with Calcedon?

[00:49:54]>> Nope.

[00:49:55]>> Would you argue with Constantinople 2?

[00:49:58]>> No.

[00:49:59]>> So in Constantinople 2 says that in every way they follow the faith taught by St. Augustine among [snorts] others.

[00:50:06]Do you see any conflict between this and your statement about St. Augustine being an heir?

[00:50:11]>> Nope. Can you explain why?

[00:50:14]>> Sure. Uh what it's affirming from St. Augustine is not the filioquay or predestination or any of the other weird stuff that he teaches because then it would be contradicting itself by affirming the other theologians that it lists. So you're saying that that the council when it says that we affirm all of what St. Augustine writes on the faith that really the council means everything but predestination in the filioquay.

[00:50:47]>> It goes on to clarify what it's talking about with all of the theologians listed. There's lots of things that the theologians, all of the theologians listed are fallible. Um, or orthodoxy does not believe anyone is infallible.

[00:51:04]So, there are lots of things that any given theologian teaches that don't become part of what is practiced everywhere at all times. Kevin, let me ask you. Does the council say, "Further, we declare and that we hold fast to the decrees of the four councils and in every way follow the holy fathers and enlist Augustine."

[00:51:26]>> Is this question, just to clarify, is this question a sincere question from an inquirer or are you just trying to back me into a corner?

[00:51:36]>> I'm asking you if the council says that.

[00:51:38]I mean, I just >> So, you're not going to answer that? Uh, I'm not going to continue with the cross-examination.

[00:51:44]>> This is my This is actually my cross- examination. You can't ask me the questions.

[00:51:48]>> I'm not asking you a question. I'm saying that I'm not going to answer your questions. I don't believe that you're acting in good faith.

[00:51:55]>> All right. So, Kevin, when the f can you can you help me understand what the council means by they follow them in every way? What does every way mean?

[00:52:06]>> I started to answer and you cut me off.

[00:52:10]and just keep asking the same >> cross-examination. I I have the right to to drive the debate.

[00:52:17]>> That's fine. And I have the right not to answer your questions.

[00:52:20]>> So, are you just conceding the entire >> I've paused I've paused the time. Um uh we're we're going to have to get past this in some sense. Uh uh Kevin, I don't I don't know. Uh perhaps you feel some type of way with Andy's attitude. Um, and >> I think I've made that.

[00:52:40]>> Perhaps you're justified. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:52:42]Yeah. No, perhaps I'm saying perhaps you're justified. Perhaps you're not. My goal is not to like pick a side on these things. I don't want to like intervene in the middle of a cross to talk about this. I pause the time by the way, Jeff.

[00:52:52]Um, so let's just get through this and we can get there. Uh, and um, I would say uh, Kevin, just you know, uh, act accordingly. If this is how he is, then you know be the same kind of way he >> No, I will not be the same kind of way.

[00:53:11]That's not righteous.

[00:53:13]I'm not going to be unrighteous because my opponent is.

[00:53:18]>> You can make all the faces you want, Andy. That's fine.

[00:53:21]>> God bless you, Kevin.

[00:53:23]>> All right, so let's just continue. And uh Andy, perhaps I don't know uh less I guess snarky or whatever it is, right?

[00:53:33]Please, let's just keep this theological. Let's keep this uh relative to the substance at hand. All right. So, go ahead. I'm going to start the time when you begin. [clears throat] >> So, when you when you say that the that the session that the that the council of Constantinople 2 later clarifies what particular things that they're speaking of that they follow Augustine in. Do you think that's contrary to what the council says when it says that they follow him in every way?

[00:54:05]>> So, I think that you're isolating, you're doing the very thing you said you weren't going to do. You're quote mining and you're quote mining in every way to mean that they have to literally affirm every single thing in every one of his books. And that's not what the council is saying. It's addressing specific topics. I think you would agree that the council is addressing specific topics and on those topics, it affirms what these theologians say in every way. So, this is not a problem for me. I I don't know why you're trying you're trying to make me out to be contradicting myself in some way.

[00:54:48]>> Well, I'm not doing I'm not trying to make you out to be that way. I just think that you are. I mean, if somebody says, let me ask you this. If somebody says that I only believe what Augustine says on particular issues and then they say, I affirm what he writes in every way.

[00:55:07]What does that mean?

[00:55:09]I would again point to the fact that if we're talk again, all of these theologians have volumes of books that they wrote. The council isn't saying that you have to affirm every single thing that every one of these theologians says. It's specifically talking about the issues being addressed in the council.

[00:55:36]>> So you would agree you would agree that like >> this is just an example of the word concept fallacy.

[00:55:41]>> You would agree that every single word concept is the word concept fallacy.

[00:55:45]>> Hold on. This is my cross. You would agree >> and I'm answering your question.

[00:55:49]>> Hold on. This is my cross. I have the right >> and I'm answering your question.

[00:55:52]>> So you would agree that every single father they have like their own particular opinions on little things.

[00:55:58]Right.

[00:56:00]>> Right.

[00:56:01]>> Sure.

[00:56:02]>> But they often write on things that are absolutely necessary to the faith like the trinity. Correct.

[00:56:09]>> Sure. So I I would agree with you that if St. Augustine has some like opinion off to the side that no other father shares and it's really not on anything that's like major to the faith, >> right?

[00:56:22]>> So then we agree >> that's that's one thing. But listen, when the c when the council says that they agree with everything that St. Augustine wrote, even if you're arguing that it's not every particular word St. Augustine on the trin on the >> word concept fallacy.

[00:56:36]>> It's not a word concept.

[00:56:37]>> It is a word concept fallacy.

[00:56:40]>> Let's switch. Let's switch tracks here.

[00:56:42]Let me ask you a different set of questions because we're not getting anywhere on this one. All right. Is it a Haresa? You won't let me answer.

[00:56:48]>> That the spirit is sent by the sun.

[00:56:51]>> Hold on one second, gentlemen. I'm going to pause the time for a second. I'm going to make something very clear.

[00:56:56]Andy, I'm not going to stop him from being aggressive in return. Just letting you know he has every right to do so.

[00:57:03]Okay? You do, in fact, Kevin, have every right to be the way you're being. And vice versa, by the way. So, just in case people are watching, stop bickering about what you guys think of the gentlemen in the chat. Let this go through. Let them have a passionate discussing discussion. No matter how it appears, let's how about we provide respect to to these showmen. Okay, I'm going to press uh resume time when you begin. And guys, be nice in the chat, please. It's important. Uh we got to be loving.

[00:57:32]>> So, Kevin, is it a heresy to say that the spirit is sent by the sun?

[00:57:37]>> No. I literally said in my opening statement, >> that's that's I just needed to know. Is it a heresy to say that the spirit >> is the spirit of the sun?

[00:57:47]>> It's not a yes or no question because you're trying to back me into a corner.

[00:57:51]>> I'm not back in my opening.

[00:57:54]>> Is it her say that the spirit >> as I said in my opening, we don't have a problem with the fact that the spirit is sent by the sun?

[00:58:04]>> Okay. But I'm asking you a different question now. Okay. So, is it a heresy?

[00:58:08]And does Christ say that the spirit is the spirit of the son?

[00:58:12]>> Again, as I said in my opening statement, the concept that the spirit is the spirit of Christ is taught in scripture and in the fathers.

[00:58:23]>> Okay. Is it a heresy to say that the spirit is from the father and the son?

[00:58:29]uh to say that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son but is from I think you could make an argument that that wouldn't be necessarily heretical depending on what you mean by that.

[00:58:42]>> I mean as it relates to eternal processions >> yeah that would be heretical.

[00:58:48]>> Okay. So I'm I'm going to bring up and James I have a question here. I just want to bring up a a quote so that we're on the same page here.

[00:58:56]>> Is it on your slides? It is on my slides. Yep, I can pull it up.

[00:59:03]So, let's go over to St. Gregory of Nissa. He's a Capidoshian.

[00:59:07]Let's see here. I don't see very well.

[00:59:09]So, let me see if I can find him. Here we go.

[00:59:13]So, when Gregory of Nissa says, "Being not ungenerated is common to the sun to the and to the spirit." Since hence in order to avoid confusion on the subject, one must again search the pure differences in the properties so that there is common uh that there is so that what is common be safeguarded. Yet what is proper be not mixed for he is called the only begotten. All right. So Christ is called the only begotten. Would you say that referencing him as only begotten refers to his eternal procession?

[00:59:45]>> Yep.

[00:59:46]>> All right. Of Christ of course. and of the father by the holy scripture getting but yes >> and this term establishes his property for him and for as for the holy spirit it is said to be from the father and is testified to be from the son so before St. Gregory of Nissa says that the Holy Spirit is from the father and the son. Does he speak on Christ's hypothatic procession?

[01:00:15]>> Sure. Well, his beetting again.

[01:00:18]>> Yeah, his beetting is his hypo hypothic procession.

[01:00:21]>> Beginning and procession aren't necessarily the same, but that's fine.

[01:00:25]>> Okay. So if Gregory is talking about the hypothatic processions, do you think that he switches from hypothatic procession when from when he talks about the sun to when he talks about the spirit?

[01:00:38]>> I would need to examine the quote in greater context to see more of his argument, but I don't I'm not going to engage in quote mining.

[01:00:48]>> So you you won't talk about the fathers at all?

[01:00:51]>> I'm not going to engage in quote mining.

[01:00:54]I haven't studied this particular quote uh or at least if I have it's been a while and uh again Dr. David Bradshaw has an excellent series on this.

[01:01:04]>> I'm not debating him. I'm not interested.

[01:01:06]>> I would encourage you out to him and have a debate with him about these quotes. I'm debating Kevin >> better suited to >> answer I mean would you at least affirm that within the context of >> I'm not gonna affirm that your interpretation of this is correct >> I'm not asking you about interpretation I'm asking you about the simple fact of the quote all right would you affirm >> that's what Protestants say >> would you affirm that St. And Gregory of Nissa is talking about the hypothatic procession of the sun and then immediately talks about the procession of the spirit whether that be temporal or eternal.

[01:01:46]>> Um yes.

[01:01:48]>> Okay. Can can you justify for me why anybody would have write a paragraph on the hypothatic procession of the sun and then very quickly add a little clause at the end about the spirit's temporal and economic procession. Why would he add that?

[01:02:08]>> I don't believe that Gregory of Nissa needs my justification.

[01:02:13]>> Well, I don't think he does either. I don't think that he wants.

[01:02:15]>> Well, you just asked me to provide a justification. I don't think he needs that from me.

[01:02:19]>> Well, I'm not asking you to justify him.

[01:02:21]I'm asking to justify your your theology, but I understand it's difficult.

[01:02:27]>> Wow.

[01:02:31]It's >> So, would you say that you follow Gregory of Nissa? Yes.

[01:02:38]>> In every way?

[01:02:39]>> I would say that. Well, I mean, I don't follow him in every way. you I'm sure you know that in some of his books he toyed around with the concept of universalism. So I obviously wouldn't follow him in every way because I don't believe the condemned heresy of universalism. So I don't follow him in every way but I also don't believe he's a filioquist since he himself along with the other capidosians teaches that properties which are um communicable are shared by all three members of the trinity and those that are not are exclusive to one member of the trinity.

[01:03:16]So the idea that be getting would go to uh the father and the son but not the spirit is something that I don't believe he's teaching.

[01:03:28]>> I don't believe he contradicts himself.

[01:03:31]>> Let's talk about another quote. Let's talk about another father. All right.

[01:03:34]Can I'm assuming that you know the nine creed from memory.

[01:03:37]>> Yes.

[01:03:38]>> Perfect.

[01:03:40]Does the creed say of Christ that he is all that he is God from God, light from light and true God from true God?

[01:03:48]>> And he said and the creed says begotten not made. Right.

[01:03:51]>> Mhm.

[01:03:52]>> So would you say when the creed says God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made. That this is in reference to the eternal procession of Christ.

[01:04:01]>> The eternal beetting of Christ. Yes.

[01:04:03]>> Yes. Well, beetting is the manner in which he proceeds from the father. So that's fine. All right. So if the phrase denotes eternal procession for clarification about what we're talking about I'm going to read this quote. All right. So St. Sirill in thesaurus de San at Consantial Trinitate says therefore if Christ by renewing and transferring us to our to new life is said to renew by the spirit according to the psalmist send forth your spirit and ye shall be created and you shall renew the face of the earth. It is necessary to confess that the spirit is of the substance of the son. For as he naturally exists from him and is sent by him into creation to enact renewal. This indeed completes the fullness and perfection of the holy trinity. If this is so, then the spirit is God and from God and not a creator.

[01:04:55]Do you think do you think that St. Cro of Alexandria was familiar with the creed?

[01:05:00]>> Yes. And since you know that when the creed says God from God in relation to Christ that this is specifically language of hypothatic procession, do you think serial also knows that?

[01:05:14]>> Yeah.

[01:05:14]>> Can you tell me why serial would for whatever reason to denote um temporal procession would dip into the language the church uses in the church in the church's symbol to denote hypoatic procession? Why would why would he use the language of hypothatic procession to denote temporal procession?

[01:05:36]>> To be fair, I actually think this is your best argument is this quote. Um, and I think that he says uh I think he says what he's saying because he's talking about a couple different things here. He's talking about the internal life of the Trinity, which is also what I think that St. Gregory is talking about. uh namely that uh the spirit proceeds from the father and rests upon the son and is the spirit of the son and I also uh think that he's talking about Christ's sending of the spirit as well.

[01:06:10]So I think he's talking about two things and I think he's doing it very eloquently. Um, but I do think that on a uh sort of on the I guess face value reading that Protestants do, um, this is your best argument.

[01:06:28]>> I mean, so, so let's dig into this just a little bit deeper because it seems like you are a little bit more willing to talk about St. Sirill. Um, can I ask >> you I already said everything I have to say about it though, so >> yeah, but I'm asking the question so I haven't. So do you think that the spirit his substance temporally proceeds from the sun?

[01:06:50]>> No.

[01:06:52]>> So when >> wait temp what do you mean temporal >> economic economically does the substance of the spirit proceed from the sun?

[01:07:00]>> Um as in the spirit being sent by the sun to dwell in us. No, I'm saying that when we're talking about the processions, if I would say if if I just say that the spirit substantially proceeds from the father, would you think that I'm talking about his eternal procession or economic?

[01:07:22]>> Um, I mean, it would depend on the context of what you were saying. I would probably think that you Well, I would depend on the context of what you were saying. I wouldn't quote mine you either.

[01:07:35]>> Oh, you can quote quote mine me all you want. I'm not saying anything I regret here.

[01:07:39]>> I respect you as an image bearer of God.

[01:07:41]So I wouldn't.

[01:07:42]>> Is it? So St. Sirill says it is necessary to confess that the spirit is of the substance of the sun. Can you explain to me why Sirill would say that the spirit is of the substance of the sun?

[01:07:57]>> Um because they are one in essence. I I actually don't even understand what your problem is.

[01:08:04]>> Why wouldn't he say that the spirit is of the substance of the father instead?

[01:08:07]Why the son?

[01:08:09]>> Why not? They're all of one substance.

[01:08:12]They're one in essence.

[01:08:14]>> I mean, because St. Sirill towards the end of this passage brings everything together and says that the spirit is God from God in relation to the sun. And he's using the language of nyine, eternal procession. He's using the nine language of eternal processions. And so it seems pretty clear to me that serial is using this language. So if serial is using the language of eternal processions says the spirit is of the substance of the sun and that in relation to the sun is God from God. I mean where are you reading or where could you possibly read economic procession into this? Again, I think that he's addressing two things and he's uh using the language to address two things at the same time. And I already said everything >> two things for me.

[01:09:03]>> I'm not going to repeat myself. Like I said, I already said >> two things.

[01:09:08]>> What?

[01:09:08]>> Can you identify the two things he's talking about?

[01:09:11]>> I already did about two things. Which which >> I already explained what I believe.

[01:09:17]>> I paused the time. I'm just going to um uh Kevin, brother, I'm just going to hold you to I'm going to ask you to answer the question and if you should >> even though I've already answered it.

[01:09:26]>> Yes. Because the fact is he he has propriety over this cross just as you will have propriety over the next I >> not going to ask him any questions though. So, >> well, okay. Well, here we go. Go ahead, Andy.

[01:09:41]>> Yeah. So, so I'll I'll let you completely say whatever you want to say and I won't interrupt you at all. Okay.

[01:09:46]Okay, unless it's getting ridiculous.

[01:09:48]Okay, what two things are you recognizing serial is talking about?

[01:09:54]>> Like I said, I think he is talking about on the one hand, I do think that he's making reference to the inner life of the Trinity. I also think that he's making reference to the holy to how that relates to the trinitarian relationship to us uh with the holy spirit resting upon us as the body of Christ. I think that both of those I think it's a both and. [snorts] >> Okay. But like can you tell me which one he's talking about when he says God from God in relation to Christ? I think he's talking about both throughout and that's why he's using um the language that he's using throughout.

[01:10:39]>> So you're saying that when when St. Sirill says that in relation to the Son, the Holy Spirit is God from God that he's speaking both economically and eternally.

[01:10:56]>> I'm saying that he's addressing both within this context. I I don't necessarily think that he's speaking of both at the same time in everything he says, but >> one minute.

[01:11:09]>> Okay. But when he says God from God to describe the relationship between the spirit and the son, do you think that's temporal or economic?

[01:11:19]>> When he says God from God to describe the relation of what? Sorry, I couldn't hear you. between the spirit and the sun.

[01:11:28]>> Uh [sighs] I don't think it's temporal. Um >> I mean if you don't think it's temporal, that's concession that the spirit that the sun is the principle of the spirit >> like eternally.

[01:11:42]>> Oh no. I'm definitely not conceding that the sun is the principle of the spirit.

[01:11:48]Well, you just said that when he says God from God to describe the relation between the spirit and the son, >> it's an eternal relationship. It's not a temporal relationship. When I talk about the when the Capidosians talk about the internal life of the Trinity, that's not a temporal relationship.

[01:12:07]>> I'll let him finish. I'll let him finish.

[01:12:09]>> I am finished.

[01:12:10]>> Oh, that was all I had to say about that.

[01:12:12]>> It sounded like a comment on a period.

[01:12:13]My bad.

[01:12:14]>> Okay.

[01:12:14]>> No, it's okay.

[01:12:15]>> Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Thank you, Kevin. Very uh very good of you, gentlemen. Uh Kevin, let me start your 20-minute clock.

[01:12:25]>> I don't I don't have any questions for Andy.

[01:12:29]>> You don't have any questions?

[01:12:30]>> None.

[01:12:32]>> Okay. Uh I've never been in this situation ever. Uh I don't know what to make of it. So, I guess we shall skip to the closing statements, I guess.

[01:12:44]>> Perfect.

[01:12:45]>> Do you have a closing statement? Uh Kevin.

[01:12:48]>> Yeah.

[01:12:48]>> Okay. All right. Okay. Uh let me just check that off. Guys, uh we have a 30 minute Q&A, so get your questions in, please. Uh super chats take priority. Uh and um I don't I don't know if I should need to reiterate this, but please guys, uh let's give the guy some grace here, okay? Um, and so let's do it like that.

[01:13:18]Um, [clears throat] um, so Andy, you have the first five minute close and then of course, uh, Kevin, you will have the next five minute segment for your close. If you don't mind, Kevin, as will I, I will turn off my camera and I will mute. I would ask the same of you. And Andy, the same would apply for you as well. And uh Kevin is producing his 5minute close. When you begin to speak, I will begin the clock.

[01:13:49]>> All right. Well, again, I want to reiterate the thanks. Uh thank you, James, for hosting and moderating the debate. Thank you for everybody who who's shown up. I genuinely appreciate that. Um thank you for the people who helped me prepare. I mean, this is a pretty, you know, resourceheavy opening statement and argument, and it's hard to do all that stuff by myself. And so, I appreciate um, you know, I don't I I don't want to say any names in case I accidentally leave somebody out. I would feel absolutely terrible. But I also wanted to thank my debate opponent, Kevin, and I I know Kevin feels a certain way about how I debate, and I understand that completely. I sympathize with that. Here's the reality, guys. We attack positions. We don't attack people. I'm not interested to be here, you know, sit here and attack Kevin personally in any way, shape, or form.

[01:14:39]All right? But let's not skip past what's important here is that Kevin along with the Orthodox Church affirms heresy. And as much as I know that Kevin is created in the image of God and that he deserves personal dignity, the heresy that he affirms does not. And that Satan is the father of all lies. And uh unfortunately I think Kevin is influenced by this although I do not think that Kevin is a liar. What I did in my op in my opening statement is you know if you're here late go and watch it um is very surgical. I demonstrated that the the council of Constantinople 2 affirms certain fathers and I went over eight of these fathers and I demonstrated that these fathers teach the filioquay. Unfortunately, my opponent was not really willing to engage so much in the fathers, but the reality is is that the fathers in are included within the deposit of faith.

[01:15:38]Um, and if he's not willing to debate the deposit of faith, whether that be scripture or the fathers, I don't I don't really know how to go about this because a filioquay doesn't pertain to natural theology. We can only know this through divine revelation. And so we have to find a way to discuss this. And so the way that we go about this is usually discussing the fathers. And if my my debate opponent is not really willing to do that, I don't really know what I'm supposed to do. But guys, I hope I was a blessing to you. I hope my opening statement showed you some good resources as to whether you or as to how you can find the filioquay in the church fathers, not just in the Latin West, but also in the Greek East. And not just in the Greek East, but the Capidoshian fathers. I have full confidence that if the Capidosian fathers lived around the time of the council of Black would be excommunicated, you know, excommunicated along with the rest of the Catholic Church. God bless.

[01:16:40]>> Right. All right. Uh well, you're conceding the rest of your time, I'm assuming. Yep. So, let me just do this.

[01:16:48]Uh, thank you Andy for that closing statement. Let me go ahead and prepare for the brother Kevin. Uh, okay.

[01:17:00]Uh, all right. Thank you, Andy, for turning off your camera. Make sure you go on mute. You didn't do that last time, though. You didn't make any noise.

[01:17:05]Make sure you hit the mute button. Um, [clears throat] Kevin, you know what to do, brother. The moment you begin, your five minutes begins. Uh, after you.

[01:17:16]Thank you, James. Um, you know, I would just say my opponent accuses me of heresy. Um, but he also completely misrepresents what I'm saying. He lied about me by saying that I wasn't willing to talk about the fathers. I discussed the fathers in my opening statement. I was willing to discuss um I was willing to discuss many things. I'm not willing to engage in quote mining as I said and I'm not willing to uh play around with these games. So if he can't uh accurately represent my position and what I'm doing then I don't see how we can trust him to accurately represent the fathers. Um which is why I didn't want to engage with him in in that and why I don't trust his reading of the fathers.

[01:18:08]uh his whole presentation boils down to quote mining and the word concept fallacy. Um so I don't really feel the need to reiterate all of that. Uh what I will say in conclusion is I'm praying for Andy and I'm praying for all of you.

[01:18:26]Uh I used to be a Roman Catholic and I thank God that he has delivered me from the heresies of the filioquay and all of the other doctrinal accretions uh and brought me into the faith once for all delivered to the saints. And I pray the same for you. And you know I I hope that I've been a blessing to you guys. I hope that in whatever way um God would use this to benefit you guys and benefit other people. Um he talked about how he hopes that you guys have lots of resources. Well, I do too. And that's why I provided lots of resources for you guys in my opening statement. And I again point you to Dr. David Bradshaw uh with regards to the specific um issue he's bringing up with the Capidosians because that's just complete li uh slander on his part to just lie on the the Capidosians or misrepresent them. I don't want to assume that he's being uh intentionally deceptive. Although um he says Satan is the father of lies and then proceeds to tell lies about me. um he either is lying or he just really doesn't understand um what I'm saying somehow even when I am I think I've been very clear about my motives and I don't understand why he has to uh misrepresent those motives but uh that's okay. I I pray for him and I pray for you and I love you guys. God bless. That's all I have to say. [snorts] All right. I have to run to the restroom. I was listening though on my mobile device. Um >> All right. See, >> I have to run to the restroom.

[01:20:40]>> Uh All right, Kevin.

[01:20:43]Uh, thank you so much for your closing.

[01:20:46]Uh, very gracious of you. Uh, let me see.

[01:20:51]Let me see.

[01:20:54]Um, all right. So, we got a 30 minute uh Q&A. So, guys, whoever has questions, uh, please put them in the chat now. Um, [clears throat] if you don't mind, uh, Kevin, I'm going to go through the super chats. Some a lot of them are not questions. I think one of them is we can go through that first and then we can go on to all other things. All right.

[01:21:19]Miriam says, "Thank you. God bless everyone here." God bless you. Thank you. Love you, sis.

[01:21:23]>> God bless you.

[01:21:25]>> Maniah, may the Lord bless you both and may our churches be one again.

[01:21:31]>> Hopefully, may the Lord heal the schism.

[01:21:33]Um, [clears throat] we got a question here from Catholic Rock.

[01:21:38]Uh, and I'm going to give it to the both of you and you guys can both address it.

[01:21:42]All right. Um, if the father eternally gives the son the full divine essence except being father, on what basis is the son excluded from participating in the spirit's eternal procession? God bless.

[01:21:59]So, uh, Andy, if you want to address the question firstly and then go at Kevin, I'll let you give you a chance.

[01:22:05]>> Sure. Yeah. I mean I the question is phrased in a way that I can't necessarily answer because or I can my answer would just be that there is no way in which the the son is prevented from this. I mean this is this is the interpretation of the fathers especially in St. Augustine who claims that and and my debate opponent is willing to admit St. Augustine was wrong on a lot of things even the filioquay. So he teaches the filioquay that when the father gives everything he has to the son nothing is withheld except that which cannot be given logically that is paternity. There's nothing about the personhood of the son that is logically opposed to him being an active spirator. So I mean I would say that there's nothing but I'm sure my opponent has something else to say.

[01:22:53]>> Kevin, would you like to address the question, brother? Yeah. Uh, well, first of all, my opponent just said accept paternity, which I feel answers the question. So, I realize that St. Augustine um probably teaches the filioquay elsewhere, but I don't necessarily think that's even true here because he says accept paternity. So, he's granting that there are things that the father does not communicate. Again in the Capidosian fathers um there are two kinds of properties. There are the personal properties that denote someone uh like for example that denote that the father is the father, the son is the son and the spirit is the spirit. These are unique only to that member of the trinity. The capidosians are very clear about this. Whereas the um prop those are called hypoatic properties. Whereas the essential properties or the properties of the essence are proper to all three together and there is no property of uh the godhead as a whole that is not proper to all three. So being the monarch of the trinity is the what makes the father the father. This is what the capidosians say. Um, and this is what the Capidosians say that the ecumenical council is talking about when it says that it affirms everything that they're saying. This is what it's actually affirming is this idea that the father is the monarch of the trinity or at least that's part of the idea. So, um, that's the answer to your question, but thank you for asking. That's a >> thank you for your answer. Appreciate you.

[01:24:38]>> Thank [snorts] you for your answer.

[01:24:39]>> God bless you. Uh we have over here just a comment from the brother Catholic conviction. Always a great time. James and Andy, thank you. Eo Kevin, uh may God bless everyone indeed. May the Lord bless us all. May he deliver us from this torment.

[01:24:55]>> God bless you.

[01:24:56]>> Um we got a question here from Maniah and I'm going to offer it to the two of you.

[01:25:04]Okay? And you guys can go ahead and answer respectively.

[01:25:08]If the spirit is spirated directly from the father, what eternal relation do the spirit and the son have? Andy, I gave you the the first answer last time. I'm going to give you the first answer this time. Uh Kevin, go ahead, brother. Right after and address it.

[01:25:30]Go ahead, Andy.

[01:25:31]>> Oh, I thought you said Kevin. My bad.

[01:25:33]Yeah. So I mean there's a certain sense in which you can say that the spirit does proceed directly from the father in so much as the father together with the son makes one principle and so the father is part of that principle and so therefore the spirit does proceed from both the father and the son immediately >> brother go ahead uh Kevin >> oh okay he's done >> yeah I he stopped speaking >> perfect thank Thank you. Um, well, first off, uh, I think I just heard Andy affirm that there are two principles in the Godhead. Uh, but so that was interesting because most Catholic apologists will try to deny that. Um, but as far as this is actually a really awesome question and I'm glad you asked it. I would point you to the book Theology and the Church by Demetrius Staniloy. Um, it's a really excellent read and he discusses this in detail. uh and he does a much better job than I will. So I apologize for my shortcomings. uh but to as best as I can summarize it would be that the spirit eternally proceeds from the father and rests upon the son and is properly speaking the spirit of the son who rests upon the son and the father and the son um and the holy spirit together live in this trinitarian internal relationship and the process of theosis is us the members of the body of Christ being joined together into that internal relationship by having the Holy Spirit dwell and abide in us as the body of Christ.

[01:27:21]>> Beautiful man. Thank you for your contribution. Great. Thank you. Um we have by the Cathodox a question over here. question for Kevin. And really, it's going to be question for the two of you. Uh I'm I'm I'm allocating a little bit of time each. And since Andy's on the affirmative, I'm always going to tell him to answer first, but then I'm as well, Kevin, >> naturally.

[01:27:46]>> Yeah. So, question for both, but specifically for Kevin, according to this commentator, you appeal to to Leo III. Do you agree with Leo III when he tells the Franks that one cannot be saved if they reject the filioquay uh of the sonat of Aen in 809 Andy?

[01:28:09]>> Yeah. So I'm not particularly familiar with that part of history, but I will say if that's true then I mean it just comports with everything that I everything that I said in my opening statement.

[01:28:21]>> Great. Um, so I was actually very specific about what I was referencing with Leo III and his heroic defense of keeping the Felioquay out of the creed and that was what I was agreeing with him. Once again, I don't have to agree with every single thing that somebody says to affirm something. I love St. Augustine a great deal. Uh, even though I know that Andy says that I don't. Um, but I actually love him a great deal. Uh but that's I he's one of the saints that I invoke in prayer every day. Um but I still recognize that he said lots of things that weren't true. So but again from the orthodox perspective the most important aspect of this debate is whether or not the filioquay can be in the creed. So Leo saying something that has nothing to do with the creed and then urging people not to add the filioquay to the creed and in fact commissioning the two shields in which the filioquay is not in the creed. Um that's what I was referencing and that's what matters to this debate from the orthodox perspective. But thank you.

[01:29:30]That's a great question.

[01:29:33]>> Beautiful gentlemen. Thank you so much uh for that. Let's go on to the next question if you don't mind. I'm trying to get through them quick. I hope that's uh >> I appreciate it.

[01:29:44]>> Right. Thank you. Uh let's do this.

[01:29:47]Let's do this. Where were we? We were after the cathodox.

[01:29:52]All right. We got a question here from Alexander Figureroa.

[01:29:56]Ask them why St. John the Damasian or of Damascus says there is an eternal relationship between son capital S and spirit capital S.

[01:30:12]Yeah. So I mean I I don't know the corpus of St. John of uh Damsian's Damascus his work in great [snorts] detail but I mean the answer is just that this is what the fathers teach. The fathers teach the filioquay the capidosians teach the filioquay. The eastern fathers teach the filioquay. I mean the aanian creed includes or the pseudoanian creed includes the filioquay and it was largely quoted across the east. And so I don't really wouldn't surprise me at all if I opened up St. John of Damascus and read the filio there because this seems to be pretty explicit. I mean notice my opponent didn't really bring up any fathers who denied the filioquay. It's because there are no fathers who deny the filioquay.

[01:30:57]motion and teach it.

[01:30:59]>> Go ahead, brother Kevin.

[01:31:01]>> Um, well, again, you can see that he just continues to say things that aren't true about me. I did quote fathers in my opening statement. I talked about fathers rejecting the filioquay. So, he can keep repeating false claims all day.

[01:31:17]Um, I already actually answered this question. Uh I think this was the question before the last one um about the eternal relationship of the father and the or I mean of the son and the spirit. So I don't know if this guy saw my answer to that question but I will um for the interest of time he can rewind.

[01:31:39]Um what I would also say though is my opponent said and I apologize for uh interrupting you Andy but he said that St. John of Damascus teaches the filioquay. Well St. John of Damascus actually directly teaches against the filioquay. So, uh, but he did admit that he's not familiar with St. John of Damascus. Um, I think you absolutely should be. St. John of Damascus is awesome and, uh, brilliant. Um, but, you know, that's fine. Uh, he would say that he's a heretic because he's a defender of orthodoxy. Um, but your church says that he's a doctor of the church, so you should definitely study him. Um, but yeah, so I I don't know if this question is trying to go into anything more than what I already said before. So, Stenilo, theology and the church is an awesome resource on this.

[01:32:34]>> Great. Thank you, gentlemen. Next question. Uh, question for the gentlemen. You appealed to Nissa. You guys plural appealed to Nissa against sharing properties between only two persons. How can the sun and spirit have the property of being caused? As Nissa says, is caused personal or essential?

[01:32:57]>> O, this is going to cause a rift.

[01:33:02]>> Andy, go ahead.

[01:33:03]>> So, let me because the fathers is what I, you know, centered my opening statement around. So let me try and give the best answer I can give is that you know the uh property of caused is not predicated to the divine essence simply because the father is not caused and so the divine essence um is what we can predicate to the divine essence are those things that we can say of all three of the persons.

[01:33:31]>> Oh so your claim ultimately is you're making the claim towards essential.

[01:33:35]>> Yeah.

[01:33:35]>> All right. Go ahead. Uh Kevin, brother, >> um thank you for the question. This is a good example of a word concept fallacy.

[01:33:44]So them being uh caused does not equal them being caused in the same way. One is begotten, one is spirated. So that's why they're not sharing the same property. Um being caused is not in and of itself a property. Being caused uh is a kind of property. There are different kinds of properties. So, uh within the subgroup of being caused, there is the property of spy rating and the property of proceeding.

[01:34:16]>> Appreciate.

[01:34:18]>> Thank you. Thank you for your contribution, man. We got a question here from our sister Cyber Bunny for [clears throat] the both of you gentlemen. Of course, the Holy Spirit is called both the spirit of the father and the spirit of the son. Why would the spirit why would the spirit's eternal procession be exclusive from the father and not the father through the son in accordance with Galatians 4 um I believe she means 6 to8 Romans 8:9 and John 16:15.

[01:34:46]>> Yeah. So I mean I think that this is just because it's you know a post h post post hawk panic move. I mean it's the same reason why they would look at John chapter 16 and when Christ says in the same sentence that everything the father has he receive I I have received and then immediately says that what I have I give to the spirit that in that same sentence they would say that one is a hypothatic procession and the other one is an economic procession doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when scripture uses the same language for both so your guess is as good as mine cyber bunny Go ahead. Uh Kevin, >> I mean it does make sense because the same concept is not being used of both.

[01:35:32]He specifically says that he sends the spirit and he specifically says that the spirit proceeds from the father. He does not say and the son. So it doesn't you can keep saying things like well it doesn't make sense. It's silly. It's goofy. That doesn't really address my argument, but um but yeah, he's called the spirit of the sun. We don't have a problem with that. Um I'm not sure why would the spirit's eternal procession be exclusively from the father because that's what the church has always confessed. Uh I don't see a problem with that. And Jesus himself says that the spirit proceeds from the father. I know Andy doesn't like me quoting that, but it's >> No, I I agree with that verse. That verse is fine. I would quote that because the spirit is is from the father. So, I that's a good verse.

[01:36:28]>> Thank you, gentlemen. Uh I believe some people are asking questions in search of more specific answers. to those in the chat that are making the claim that no question is being answered. It perhaps it's not being answered to the in the manner that you're expecting it to be answered, but it's in fact being answered. Uh these gentlemen are attempting to the best of their knowledge provide to provide good answers. So let's just bear that in mind. Um we got a question here from Kaiwatch.

[01:37:01]I'm sorry for abusing your name. I I really didn't mean that. Um, where do the Capidosians define the unique idiom of the father and how is it being the sole principle of another or being unbegotten?

[01:37:15]How is the sun being one principle a sharing of unbegottenness?

[01:37:22]Andy and Kevin, >> do you mind? Um, James, help me clarify this question because I feel like it's written a little bit in a confusing way.

[01:37:32]How help you clarify this question?

[01:37:35]>> Yeah.

[01:37:35]>> Uh well, it's gonna it's going to pertain to how you can assign unbegottenness to the son and what idiom you would apply uh to the father in terms of uh his property of unbegottenness and how does that relate to the son in the spy reading of the spirits?

[01:37:53]>> Oh, I'm not sure.

[01:37:56]>> Kevin, if you want to touch on it, brother. I also find the question to be worded in a confusing way. So >> I agree. I apologize.

[01:38:06]>> I don't want to um I apologize. I don't want to answer a question he's not asking. And I know that you just said people are complaining that I'm not answering questions or whatever. Maybe they are. I'm not looking at the comments, but I don't understand this question. So >> I I would I would I think what he means to say is what is signified in unbegottenness?

[01:38:28]What property is signified in unbegottenness and how does that translate to the son and thereafter? Oh.

[01:38:33]Uh, what as in what quality is? Yeah.

[01:38:36]>> Uh, the unbegottenness of the father, >> right?

[01:38:40]>> That's a reference to the father being the monarch of the trinity. So, uh, so he is the sole principle, the sole cause of the trinity. There isn't another principle >> uh within the trinity. This is why we say I believe in one god, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

[01:38:58][snorts] >> Yeah, I don't necessarily have an issue with that. like the father is the only end and begotten. He's the e perus of the trinity. He's the he's the sole prime cause of the divinity of the processions of both of the son and the spirit. So I have no idea where actually uh at least in principle Catholicism and orthodoxy would agree. Yeah.

[01:39:20]>> Um but again I I hope that I'm understanding your question now. Thanks to James.

[01:39:26]>> Take it with a grain of salt. Hi, >> I think I think the question and to to the credit of both you gentlemen, I think the question is very uh poorly articulated. Respectfully, Mr. Kai Schwarz, I think rewrite it and I'll find it and I'll I'll pin it and we'll try it again.

[01:39:43]>> Yeah. What the heck, man?

[01:39:45]>> Oops.

[01:39:46]>> Maybe he's just smarter than than all of us.

[01:39:50]>> Question for the gentleman. Is the fully quay infallibly condemned? Since Eastern Orthodox have not had an ecumenical council since the schism, if it's not infallibly a heresy, how can you call Roman Catholics heretics? Andy, I'm going to let you touch on this even though it would seem that it does not pertain to you.

[01:40:11]>> Yeah. I mean, it's they haven't had an ecumenical council. I mean, but but you could make the argument and if I could step into Kevin's shoes and try and charitably, you know, kind of, you know, give some try to steal me on his case is that, you know, it might not be infallible in relation to the uh the deposit of faith, but it it might be we might be bound to that or the Orthodox might be bound to that under the presupposition that the fathers deny the filio way unanimously. of course, except for Augustine, him being, you know, the black sheep of the family. And so, you know, like for us, there might be some kind of heresy, um, if you can call it a heresy that is, you know, there there there are certain things today that people believe that aren't necessarily formally condemned at a council with an anathema, but we would still be okay in calling that a heresy because it is against what the church has already taught. And you can also make, you know, cases for it being um untrue and compromising something that is, you know, orthodox.

[01:41:19]>> Uh Kevin, >> uh I actually cited something in my opening statement that Orthodox Christians believe is an ecumenical council. We call it the eighth council.

[01:41:31]Um, colloquially we often speak of seven ecumenical councils, but we've had more councils since then that we consider to be ecumenical or at least often consider to be ecumenical. So I think that the uh foundation of the question is flawed.

[01:41:47]Um, for example, the council of 879 to 880 uh we often refer to as the eighth council.

[01:41:55]um and it does condemn the filioquay but uh I also would say that I don't think that we have to have an infallibly con condemned statement from an ecumenical council um if someone is teaching things that are contrary to the apostolic deposit we condemn that and if people are adding to the creed that we are specifically told not to add even a syllable to we condemn and that. So, um, that's that's all I really have to say about it.

[01:42:31]>> Okay, great. Thank you.

[01:42:32]>> Appreciate the question.

[01:42:34]>> Thank you for answering, gentlemen. Um, we got Alex Figureroa.

[01:42:40]When you keep saying the spirit, excuse me, I'm going to try to word this. It's a little bit. Anyway, um when you keep saying that the spirit rests on the sun, are you inserting that the spirit capital S only rests on the sun and and thereby there is no eternal hypothic relation? If so, how can Christ be fully God if the spirit, capital S, isn't fully in the Son, capital S, and only rests upon him? Andy, >> capital H.

[01:43:17]>> Yeah, capital H. Yeah, [laughter] [gasps] >> go ahead, Andy.

[01:43:24]>> Oh, uh, this is just for Kevin. I mean, this is a clarifying question for something that Kevin said.

[01:43:29]>> Well, I'm gonna allow you the opportunity to give a even if it's just a comment. Yeah, >> I'm going to do the same for the both of you. And guys, if you have questions directed at Andy now as you're chocked, >> I mean that the spirit receives of and this is going to actually relate to a question that somebody's asking here in just a just a minute or two. But if the spirit receives what is of Christ, I mean, you're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place between admitting that the spirit receives that eternally or that the spirit somehow learns from Christ economically and that that somehow is like, you know, that obviously would be a denial of of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. And I would hope that Kevin wouldn't want to do that. And so there must be some eternal relation between the spirit and the son, right? that goes beyond just an economic like resting of the spirit upon uh upon the sun.

[01:44:22][snorts] >> Go ahead. Uh brother Kevin.

[01:44:25]>> Yeah. Um so I don't see a problem with interpersonal relationships within the Trinity. And I don't understand. I've never really understood when Catholics make the argument that if the son doesn't spirate the spirit, then he's not fully God because you guys believe that the spirit is fully God. And as far as I know, you don't think that the spirit has to be able to be or spirate some other entity in order to get there uh in order to be fully God. you don't believe that this means that he learns from whatever whatever. So, it just seems like such an odd claim when you guys start talking like this. Um, and it seems like it would just as easily refute your own side, which is why Jay Dyer brought this up with um, uh, oh, I really like him actually, the case for the patriarchy guy, Tim Gordon.

[01:45:32]And, uh, Tim Gordon said that the spirit precedes himself.

[01:45:38]um to try to get around the the issue that that was creating. So I don't think you guys would say the spirit precedes himself or beggets himself. I don't think you guys would say that the spirit precedes somebody else or begets somebody else. And yet you think that I'm denying the son's full divinity by saying um that the spirit doesn't proceed from him. it. I just don't understand the bedrock of of this question. So, I apologize if I'm not smart enough to understand where you're coming from. But that's my answer. God bless.

[01:46:15]>> That's totally fair. Totally fair. Um, it's question for the two of you. This is sort of quick. Um, just a few book few book suggestions for the people watching from the Catholic perspective which I uh and from the Eastern Orthodox perspect perspective in you Kevin. So, uh, go ahead, Andy. Go ahead, Kevin.

[01:46:35]>> Yeah. So, this is actually a perfect opportunity. The stars have aligned when you ask what could we read that shows the filioquay before it was before Nika, right?

[01:46:50]The Bible. Pretty easy one. And that's why that's why we bring up that's why we bring up um that Christ says that the spirit proceeds from me. Maybe I can offer Kevin some clarification.

[01:47:00]is that we don't want to say that when Christ says the spirit will receive from me that the spirit receives from Christ something that he does not already have.

[01:47:11]Right? So we don't want to say that the spirit has motion that he learns that he was imperfect and incomplete and then when the revelation of Jesus Christ is given to the holy spirit this somehow completes him or completes his knowledge. We wouldn't say this. So this the the knowledge that the son has of the father is given to him through the beetting of the son from the father right. So when the father beggets the son he gives to the son everything that he has which can logically be given outside of patern you know everything outside of paternity. So when when the son begets or not begets, oh my gosh, Freudian slip, my bad, Kevin, but when the son spirates the spirit, right, he gives to the spirit what he has. And thus the spirit has knowledge of the son because the spirit is spirated from the father and son as one principle. And so that's why we bring up that passage.

[01:48:12]There's other biblical arguments that you could make, but I don't want to sit here forever and take up your guys' time in a Q&A.

[01:48:20]>> Go ahead. Go ahead, Kevin.

[01:48:25]>> I don't hear you. Do you hear him?

[01:48:27]>> You might be muted, brother.

[01:48:28]>> Oh, >> well, you just called me a heretic. Why are you calling me brother now? Um anyway, um I would say that when some so I can't answer what books say there is a filioquay before Nika because I don't believe that. Uh but I would urge you to read um St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Arnaeus of Leon, all of the fathers prior to Nika. I would urge you to actually read the Capidosians and not take Andy's word for what they say. And I would urge you to read the mystiggo of the Holy Spirit by St. Phodias the Great. I think that is to date the best reputation ever written of the Filioquay. Um I think it's excellent and it's not a very long book. So um I I genuinely believe everyone should read that book. It's it's that good. Um it's not a it's not before the Council of Nika though, but it is excellent. and he is referencing back two fathers before him. So I think that that's uh going to give you, you know, read his book and then read everybody he cites and you'll be good to go.

[01:49:46]So uh uh you guys don't mind if I touch on this real quick since it's just Q&A as in the Catholic position uh Thomas Green's book on the filio in the Eastern Orthodox position Edward Shashinski I can never say his name Edward Edward Sashinski uh he he offers a case for the Eastern Orthodox side. So those two authors are great authors to look into if you should want to inquire about the filio way through the church's history.

[01:50:17]All right, I'm going to continue. Uh we have two minutes left. I'm going to take this one last question and then um unfortunately we will not be able to cover the rest. Uh uh so let's do that. I'm going to do this one over here.

[01:50:36]Um, question for the the gentleman. How can you guys reconcile St. Augustine's theology with the filioquay? Would you say he was an error on this topic? Um, I think this was addressed. Nonetheless, it was a good question to reiterate perhaps. So, Andy, go ahead. What's your view on Augustine and the filioquay and the soundness or the lack thereof according to the historical claims and the deposit of faith?

[01:51:07]>> Yeah, I mean St. Augustine his work on the trinity is foundational. I mean it's along with St. Hillary of Pont of uh Pierers their work on both of their works on theology are foundational along with the Capidocian fathers and so to take [clears throat] something that's so precious to the church right and deny it is crazy. I'm only saying that because unless I'm wrong I am like kind of anticipating Kevin admitting that Augustine teaches the filioquay unless I'm wrong he can correct me when when he answers.

[01:51:43]There's there's no necessity to like make a reconciliation between the filioquay and Augustine because Augustine teaches the filioquay and he's affirmed by the councils. He's a pillar of orthodoxy. And so I mean there's no need to reconcile those things. We receive the filio from Augustine and other authors like St. Hillary, like Basil, like Gregory the Great, like St. Pope Leo um and like Athanasius Ambrose and all the people I brought up I brought up Augustine is just probably the most articulate and who you have to do the least amount of work to demonstrate that he teaches the filioquay.

[01:52:24]>> Thank you Andy. Go ahead. Uh brother Kevin >> um yeah I I don't think there's a need to reconcile St. Augustine. I think that you know again it Andy says that his writings are foundational not on the trinity. Um St. Augustine's day trinitate book was not what the church um held to. It is not what the church accepted and embraced. And Augustine has many great works um that are universally loved or almost universally loved within orthodoxy.

[01:53:02]But uh but that's not one of them. Uh as far as you know, Augustine, uh unfortunately, there's lots of false things he teaches. He teaches that unbaptized babies go to hell. He teaches that um that he teaches all kinds of bizarre things about predestination and all kinds of stuff. And Andy even admitted that and kind of dismissed that as well, he's allowed to have his private opinions. But that contradicts Andy's whole point that we have to accept everything Augustine says because the council says in all things. Well, he's granting my point then that saying in all things does not literally mean every word that proceeded from his mouth. Uh it's specific to the things the council is addressing. So not the filioquay. Um that is not the book that's cited in the council. Um so that's what I would say is uh let's practice what St. Photus the Great does and with regards to St. Augustine, let's cover the shame of our great father and not not only not expose his nakedness, but not do even worse and uh actually repeat and promote and imitate his error.

[01:54:27]>> Gentlemen, I know we allocated uh set time for Q&A. There is one more super chat if you if if you wouldn't mind. Of course. Of >> course. Um is that okay with you, Kevin?

[01:54:38]Sure.

[01:54:39]>> Okay. Thank you. Uh I think this was a clarification from the gentleman's last claim. I meant to say that the hypothatic idiom of the father as named by the capidosians is unbegotteness not being sole principle of another. How is this violated by the begotten being one principle with him?

[01:55:03]Andy, I would say don't touch this one because I think this pertains more to you, Kevin. Uh because it would be the clarification. Andy is already in agreement with the claim. So >> yeah, >> Kevin, >> I mean I would again point out the fact that the Capidosians do expressly state that the father is the sole principle um as do many fathers. But uh that's also not the point. Um sorry being unbegotten. unbegottenness.

[01:55:33]Um, I don't I don't see unbegottenness as necessarily being, at least right now, off the top of my head, I don't necessarily see that specifically being violated um, by the two principles thing. I think other things are problematic about the two principles claim. Um, but not every heresy has to be every other heresy as well. So, I'm not sure why uh this would follow, [clears throat] but I appreciate the uh clarification, Kai, cuz uh like I said before, maybe you're smarter than us, but we didn't understand, or at least I didn't understand your first uh comment, so I appreciate you dumbing it down for me.

[01:56:16]>> God bless you, Kai.

[01:56:18]>> Oh, man. Guys, uh shoot. Okay, Mando, love you, man. God bless you. Always nice to see you, Mando. Gentlemen, I'm gonna put this on the table. Feel free to do do with it as you please. Kevin, why don't you cover the shame of Palamas or Fodius. I'm gonna let you be snarky about that because it is intended or I'm going to let you address it at the least.

[01:56:40]>> I don't uh I don't believe that they have any shame um to cover. And Heresy Hunter, I appreciate you being here. God bless, man. Um may God have mercy on us all.

[01:56:57]Okay, beautiful. Thank you. Thank you for the for that uh statement, Kevin.

[01:57:02]Gentlemen, great job. Honestly, uh chins up. I know it was a little bit, you know, dicey to say the least. I think dicey would be the right word here. Um Andy, brother, give us a few words on your way out. And then Kevin, I'll ask of you as well a few words. Let the world know where they can find your channels respectively. Who knows, someone might see this in the future, not just the ones that are in the live chat right now, but someone might see this in the future and want to perhaps gander into your, you know, channels.

[01:57:39]So, please plug in your channels. Don't be shy to do so. And uh I'll after the live Kevin and Andy I'll put both your channels in the description so that whoever is watching this in the future make sure you consult the description to find these brother's channels. Andy go ahead and then Kevin after him.

[01:57:57]>> Yeah. So I'm persuaded apologetics. I have a Tik Tok and a YouTube account. I post mostly on YouTube. I haven't posted on Tik Tok in a while but there's a big treasury of videos there. I don't normally speak a lot about orthodoxy.

[01:58:11]I'm normally um going on about evangelicalism and Protestantism, but um I didn't really find this to be more challenging. And so I might be doing some more Protestant stuff in the future. I didn't find this much of an issue. And so um if you want to follow that, if you want to subscribe to my channel, God bless you. Trying to get a million followers by the end of the year.

[01:58:34]>> I'm at 30 I'm at 3,100.

[01:58:37][laughter] I got I thank you Andy. Uh Kevin, I got your channel in the side chat. Thank you, brother. Go ahead.

[01:58:45]>> Great. Um on YouTube, I'm Freed Indeed Ministries. Um but I do most of my work over on Tik Tok. Uh where you can find me. Um I think it's still listed as uh Kevin Nicholas Hughes. So you can find me under that name. Um, Nicholas is my patron saint, so that's why. Um, and uh, yeah, that's where you guys can find me. I appreciate it.

[01:59:16]>> Thank you, gentlemen. Phenomenal work.

[01:59:19]Uh, thank you for being upstanding gentlemen. Um, thank you for persisting even though the both of you were dicey to one another in a sense. You know, you know, a little bit of a, you know, whatever that is. Um, [clears throat] so in typical fashion, I'm going to end the stream with a prayer. So, um, let's just do this prayer and head on out. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

[01:59:51]Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

[01:59:58]Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from all evil. Amen. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

[02:00:30]Guys, hit the like button. Hit the like button. Thank you for your support. All the super chats and whatnot. We almost hit the goal. Love you guys. Thank you for everything. Uh I haven't been around. Short little statement I need to make, Andy, if you don't mind. Um I've been uh and I'm just going to say this straight up. I don't know how else to say it. the Christian um the Christian online position uh or the Christian online scene has been, you know, utterly disgusting as of late. And so I've opted to stand back until all this useless drama sort of goes and passes by. It's kind of embarrassing. It's unbefitting. It's unbecoming. And so I just want you guys to know that I plan on coming back. I just waiting for things to be less petty and and and uh and whatnot. And I'm not talking about heresies. I'm talking about just sheer drama and complete garbage. Um so I'm going to wait for all that to pass before I come back and get back to the theological stance of things. I could care less about the drama. I have no two cents. I just wanted to say that. So, I love you guys.

[02:01:48]I miss you guys. Make sure you hit the the like button. Uh, make sure you show some love to the brother Kevin. I think he had to go. Let's not assume he did anything in spite. I think he just had to go in a haste. Um, and um, show some love to the brother Andy and thank you for all the love you guys have shown me.

[02:02:08]And Pax, Christie, hold on. Omnibus.

[02:02:29][music] Oh, [music] many [singing] glory. [singing] >> [chanting] >> in [music] his [music] [music] weight.

[02:03:19][singing] [music] [music] >> [music] >> to me.

[02:04:00]Salvina. Yeah.