Fr. Stephen De Young exposes the logical incoherence of a theology that claims historical continuity while simultaneously invalidating a millennium of Christian practice. It is a sharp critique of a framework that tries to claim the Church Fathers while functionally rejecting their entire ecclesiology.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Tony Costa's TERRIBLE Arguments against ORTHODOXY - Fr Stephen De Young, CleaveAdded:
So Tony Tony Costa is trying to be well he's trying to be reformed into a Baptist at the same time. So he's got two radically different competing ecclesiologies. The Baptist ecclesiology is essentially restorationist because he's got to say everybody was baptizing babies for minimally a thousand years.
Which think about that for a second.
Tony Costa believes not a single human being was validly baptized for a thousand years.
>> Yeah. Let's let's get into the actual arguments because I think they actually start arguing around >> after seeing Jay Dyer, you know, in their mind.
>> Yeah, exactly. Oh, he said he said bingo, therefore he's a jihadi. You know, all Oh, okay. We get it. 40 minutes of uh them saying Jay Darm mean.
Uh I think there was one part I can't find it, but they were complaining about Jay saying Oh, there you go. They were I'm not gonna anyway. They were complaining about this piece here. Jay said that the uh basically the 21 uh Coptic martyrs aren't martyrs within our church. They took issue to that statement. Um because they're not, you know, in our in our calendar or whatever. They're saying it's it's evil that you're not like commemorating them liturgically.
>> If you go around saying people aren't saints because they're not the synixarian, people get really mad at you. I've discovered >> You can't relate, can you, father?
>> Yeah.
So, they got upset at this and they also got upset at this here. Okay. So, they say I might actually just play this part right here if I can get the right portion.
>> He wouldn't call those guys martyrs and runs up and you see them. He wouldn't call those guys martyrs because they're outside the church just like these uh these cops were.
>> And then one one more here. So, this is from Andrew Wilson. And I I I I want people to understand like what these guys actually believe about people outside their church. So this is uh Andrew Wilson. This is Andrew Wilson.
And he's got two memes there. So the meme on the left was one that was sent to him to describe what's going on with the Orthros. And then he fixed it. So um I'll show you the actual memes here.
This is the first one that was sent to him.
>> Okay.
>> So in this one, an unbeliever is saying, "Help me. She's on fire." And a Christian runs up and says, "Don't worry. Here comes the water of life."
So, this is a this is meant to describe preaching the gospel to the person, everyone.
>> And then he finds out what the and it's the hose isn't working. And it's because an orthobro has >> has turned off has turned off the hose.
And he says, "First, let's settle who the real firefighter is between the two of us."
>> Oh, let me fast forward. Someone didn't show that just in case they thought it was something else. You flag it. My fix of that, I haven't seen this other fix, but my fix of that would be uh you have to settle what the gospel is, >> yes, >> is this water you're spraying or is it, you know?
>> Well, that's that's exactly what >> gasoline, right?
>> Yes. That's that's what Andrew Wilson shared. He said, "It's like it's like they're spraying them with gasoline."
>> Yeah. And that's and and and in in my estimation that seems true because they're sending people off to these messianic Jewish cults or to the like new IFBs who are literally saying like, "Oh, you know, the whole Stephen Anderson thing. I don't need to really repeat on the streaming."
>> They don't think we have the gospel.
>> Exactly.
>> They don't think what we call the gospel is the gospel. Why would they expect us to think what they call the gospel is the gospel?
>> Right. Right.
This is I mean this is this is a phenomenon I've seen since like beginning to enter the Orthodox church over the last 25 years on the internet.
It's, you know, people call me a necromancer and, you know, a pagan and an idoltor and I a false teacher and I don't have the gospel and da da da da da. But then if I say they're not my brother in Christ, like how how dare you? How dare you, sir?
>> Create division.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. you you well it's like uh it's like well I say the uh I say anybody who says you're the one true church that's a heresy but why are you guys not joining us to fight these heretics.
>> Yeah you you want your cake uh you want to have your cake and eat it too. This is uh this is absurd. But they don't realize that their logic is circular. So let's see if they I believe they actually get into some arguments here but they were mostly griping about that.
They're like look they're saying us giving the gospel is like burning them.
this is, you know, horrible. Which, I mean, yeah, that is kind of what we're saying, dude. Like, you're not actually giving them the gospel. You're giving them a false gospel leading them into cults. This is why you need to be Orthodox so you can actually send them into Christ Church >> who are in Christ and and redeemed, regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
>> Um, and when I when I see this stuff, um, you know, I think and I think this on multiple issues so far, so we'll have to see. We'll have to see. um what the explanations are for some of the issues.
But just think about how different the attitude is from uh the Apostle Paul in in in Philippians 1 where he's talking about people who are actually preaching who are hostile to him. So they don't like an apostle. They don't like an apostle of Jesus Christ. They hate Paul and >> he says they're preaching from from some some false motives. And he says but whatever their motives if if Christ is proclaimed I rejoice. I rejoice that Christ is proclaimed even from these people that I that hate me and that I disagree with. I rejoice that they are whatever else they were doing. They were proclaiming Christ accurately. They just had bad motives and so on. Um but if you if you talk to Muslims, hey, Jesus died on the cross for sins. He rose from the dead. He's Lord. Um Nope. It's all bad because Gohead. You wanted to chime in.
>> Well, he notice he slipped the word accurately.
>> Yes.
>> Which is precisely what's an issue is that they're not preaching Christ accurately.
>> Right.
>> Correct.
>> Mormons preach Christ to people.
Jehovah's Witnesses preach Christ to people.
Okay? So, it's accurately that's what we disagree about, right? If it was just about motives, right?
If it was just about motives, he would have a point because that's what is what St. Paul is talking about. St. Paul is talking about motives, right?
But see, here's the problem.
They're going to come after Jay about his motives.
Whereas I would say, hey, even if every slanderous thing ever said about Jay Dyer was true, he's just a grifter. He's just in it for the money. He's just whatever, whatever, whatever. Hey, he's bringing a lot of people to the Orthodox church. So, I rejoice because for whatever motive Christ is being preached, right?
>> They're the ones going after Peter people's motives. I'm not I'm not going I assume I'm willing to give David Wood the benefit of the doubt that he really has a heart for Muslim people and wants to see them come to Christ. Right? The question at issue is are you accurately presenting Christ to those people? Are you really presenting them at all? Are you just presenting them with sort of a vague outline of Christ and then sending them off to get that outline filled in by who knows what, >> right?
>> Whatever local church they end up at. by literally anything. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Just read read your Bible and see what you agree with and then go find a church you agree with >> as a as an ex-Muslim.
>> I mean, where are they gonna end up? I mean, spin the roulette wheel anywhere.
They're they're outside of your church.
Very, very, very different attitudes here.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Um I'm not sure what to do with the super chats because I want to get started. Let let me kind of zoom through super chats and we'll take the ones that are actually relevant to our to our subject and then you can respond to those. If the orthod bros believed in the writings of the early church fathers they would be they would be premill.
>> That's true David. Um first 300 years Justin Martyr >> let's listen to his argument and then we can respond to it.
>> Many of the fathers of the church were premill. They believed that Christ would return and establish a millennial kingdom on the earth. And errenaeus talked about the earth becoming a a paradise and and and food and fruit would be in abundance. And until the conversion of Constantine um that that shifted into more of an amalennial view that the kingdom the millennium is the church age. And so we could actually track the evolution of this view that you go from classical prim to a mill with Constantine and then Augustine was a huge contributing uh father in this area. And then later on you get this postmillennialism. The dispensations come along and they create a premillennialism where you have Israel in the church and so on. But what this person has noted there he is absolutely correct. the the the earliest fathers of Papius and Erenus and Justin Martyr.
These guys were were full-blown premillennialists.
>> Do you want to go ahead, father? I know you want to respond to that.
>> Oh, man. I didn't know we were going to get these level of comedy stylings. Um, so, uh, yeah, first of all, Papius, Papius was a full-blown pre, we only have Papius in fragments. Like, we do not have any of his works. we have fragments of his works as quoted in Ucius.
Right? So we we don't know Papius full views on anything. So that's a red flag when anyone is confidently uh talking to you about Papius's views, but St. Irenaeus, I mean, I did a thing on this on on Lord of Spirits. First of all, the question is whether or not he was a kilast. Okay, killasm and premillennialism are not the same thing.
And also, if Tony Costa is a premillennialist, he's even less reformed than I thought he was. Like, I don't know where he gets off calling himself reformed if he's both a Baptist.
So, he doesn't accept reformed ecclesiology, sactology, or esquetology now. Like, I know he believes in tulip, I guess. I don't know. Um so kilazasm which was the actual teaching of the early church which was condemned as a heresy specifically the pontic heresy because it was very common around pontis and because uh the uh montinists montanis himself was sort of a renowned kilast.
Um the fact that kilasm was seen as a heresy in the ancient church is what kept the book of revelation out of the cannon for so long.
because people thought it was teaching kilazasm.
Um the uh so kilazm was the view that Christ was going to return to earth and create a paradise of earthly delights uh for for Christians to enjoy, right?
Like Muslim heaven, right? When I say paradise of earthly delights, I mean, >> you want to play you want to play Minecraft with the prophet.
>> Like, yes. Like, you're not allowed to drink now, >> right?
>> You're going to be wasted out of your mind partying for a thousand years.
Okay, that's what the kills taught.
Okay, now there's a particular section of St. Erynaeus uh against heresies that gets cited to claim that he was Achilas. This is what I went through on Lord of Spirits at one point. We went through the passage in detail. You can look that up if you want all the detail. I won't do all the detail here, but basically he's quoting a bunch of second temple Jewish texts that folks like Tony who have just read it in Sha and aren't familiar with the literature don't realize. Um to talk about the messianic age.
This is not literally the it's not St. Urennaeus making literal statements about esquetology. It's St. Eraeus quoting texts, one of which is the book of Enoch uh about the messianic age, right? But the reason I was literally laughing is that's not premillennialism, right? kills a pre no premillennialist that I know of, I'm sure there's some kook out there somewhere, but no premillennialist I know among Baptists thinks that the millennial kingdom is some kind of paradise of earthly delights, >> right?
>> Uh, you know, where you're you're partying and celebrating all the time and drinking gallons of alcoholic wine.
>> Wow.
and feasting sumptuously, you know, on meats and all of this, right? I I don't know any premillennialists who believe in that. So, >> right, >> there's not even a question that St. Irenaeus was not a premillennialist, >> right? The question is, was he Achilles?
>> And I and all of the later church fathers argue no.
>> As a fan of your work, I would ask you to stop all public internal doctrine convos till you have studied them enough in private where you can affirm them publicly. take a year to study before debating orthos. Um, or I can just learn right now by having different people on.
Uh, then read some things, watch some videos, and then I'm good. Why would I want to do that in private instead of doing it? Because >> you could you could do that. You'll just lose horribly.
>> Well, yeah. Like, that's really like, oh yeah, I could take the time and do a bunch of research and learn a bunch of things or I can just, you know, talk to some people who present themselves as experts and watch a few YouTube videos and then proclaim myself now an expert.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. I watched a bunch of need God videos and then now I'm good. Now I'm an expert.
>> Like that's that's not like I'm trying really hard to give Woods the benefit of the doubt, but that's not something a serious person says, >> right?
>> Yes, I could take a couple of years to study, but no, I'm going to watch a few videos.
>> Like serious, come on, man.
>> Guess what, guys?
>> The Orthos are do the Ortham bros are doing this to all kinds of people. So, if they're demanding we have to debate the true church, why wouldn't this be a good opportunity for everyone to learn to debate? Whatever side you end up coming down on, why wouldn't this be a good opportunity for people to learn what the case is for Eastern Orthodoxy?
What the criticisms of it are, what the responses to those criticisms are, why why would this be? Why is this something only I should be uh learning and in private when I can just do it right here on time? We live in we're in a different universe now. Protestant work ethic. It is not late. The clock is early. That's true. Uh Tony, talk about Paul Mary.
>> I'm not trying to pinpoint. We don't look at the church as some type of a trademark institution. We see the church as organically the body of Christ throughout the world. But the church has always been here. There have been periods of apostasy and I do believe Eastern Orthodoxy is an apostate church just as much as I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be an apostate church. And that's because that because she has deserted the gospel of grace. We can talk about that. But what I am saying is there have been people throughout Christian history who have challenged who have brought reformed who pointed us back to the scriptures.
people like Augustine, people like Athanasius. And I think it's important for us to realize that when we look at the Old Testament, the same thing happened with the people of God in the Old Testament. You read about all these kings that rule over Israel and they were apostate endorsing pagan practices, but yet God had his remnant. We think the days of Elijah, Elijah thought he was the only prophet left. And yet Elijah could uh was was ready to just throw in the towel and he says, "I'm done. Take my life, Lord. I'm the only one left." And the Lord had to remind him that there was still, he says, "I still have 7,000 in reserve who have not bent the kneel me to bail." And then of course in the days of King Josiah, this young 8-year-old kid gets brought to the throne. And then they discover the book of the law in the temple while they're renovating the temple. Remember this was under the apostasy period in Israel. And then when he reads the word of God, he just he he sees the light and he brings these massive reforms. He gets rid of the high places.
>> So he's saying he's saying uh there his his reformed Baptist church is the is the remnant. These evangelicals, they're the remnant. Um, he claimed he claimed Augustine was his guy. That's absurd. I mean, do you have Bishops? Tony Costa, you have Bishops. I mean, have you ever read any of his work talking about that? Go ahead.
>> Yeah. So, he he he and from some other of the clips I think that were early in the in the video that I saw, >> he claims a lot of people.
So, like he wants to claim Martin Luther, who literally would have had him killed for being a Baptist.
>> Exactly.
>> He wants to claim St. Augustine who was a monk and a bishop and clearly believed in seven sacraments and I mean on and on and on and on and on without before we even get to the tiny little bit of Calvinism that Tony Costa believes uh and whether St. Augustine really taught that like on everything else his ecclesiology was different than than Tony Costas. His his sactology was completely different. His view of church history was completely different. His way of interpreting scripture was completely different. His canon was completely different. His right I mean on and on and on. Right. And so he just wants to claim these people as his forebears in some vague sense. And and this is the problem. you I respect where he started.
When when when a an actual reformed person comes and says to me, "Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are apostate churches."
>> I can respect that as long as and a real reformed person will respect this. They respect the fact that I think the same about them.
>> Right. Yeah.
>> I don't get all hurt that they think I preach a false gospel.
>> Right.
>> Right. But I think they teach a false gospel. And as long as they're willing to accept that, right, then hey, we have no problem. Yeah, I agree. From your perspective, I'm preaching a false go.
From my perspective, you're preaching a false gospel, right? And so that's the problem. So we're an apostate church, but then he wants to claim a bunch of those apostates as his forebears.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly.
>> There's a point in the video where he literally says, "We are not restorations." As we're not restorations, we're not like the Mormons. We're not restorationists. We just believe we're recovering the apostolic gospel. It's like like you just reverse course in one sentence. Recovering what?
You're not restoring it. You're recovering it. Those are two Oh, those are totally different things. Oh, okay.
Okay.
>> Um like you you can't have it both ways.
Okay. And in terms of this whole faithful remnant thing he's trying to do, right?
this I mean obviously he has real covenant theology problems if he's a premillennialist and a Baptist and trying to claim to be reformed at the same time but uh once again he's essentially arguing that the new covenant is no different than the old covenant yes the old covenant the vast majority of Israel was apostate and there was a faithful remnant and according to St. Paul in Romans. Now again, he's got this weird Calvinist way of reading Romans that he's shoehorned into his Baptist theology.
>> But if you actually read Romans, St. Paul says that the fulfillment of that faithful remnant that was preserved throughout the Old Testament is Jewish Christianity, which is the root and trunk of the tree into which gentile faithful are grafted.
So that faithful remnant found its fulfillment.
>> And when you read the promises about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31, right, and in Ezekiel, the whole promise is this time it's not going to be like the last time.
This time the Torah is going to be written in our hearts. This time the Holy Spirit is going to keep. This time is going to be different. He's arguing this time is exactly the same.
exactly the same. And all of those prophecies about the new covenant, I don't know, maybe he's a dispensationalist. Maybe he thinks all of those prophecies about the new covenant aren't fulfilled until the millennial kingdom and that's why things now are are exactly the same as they were, right?
Maybe. I don't know. I don't I'm totally confused by how he fits these disperate elements of theology together in his head. Um, and he seems free to contradict himself from sentence to sentence, but right, but but he's saying it's the same, right? And this is another case where I think it would be good for him to talk to a Jewish person, right? Because you know what one of their main arguments against Christianity is?
One of their main arguments against Christianity is if Jesus is the Messiah and he came 2,000 years ago, why does the world look like this right now?
Things were supposed to be get better, right? Once the Messiah came, the knowledge of God was supposed to be spread across the whole earth, right?
And so unless you have an understanding, a real understanding of Christ's church, which requires an orthodox ecclesiology, unless you have a real understanding of the way in which the Holy Spirit through the church has spread the knowledge of God throughout the earth, unless you have an understanding of how those are fulfilled, then Tony Costa has no answer to an Orthodox Jew who says that to him. Mhm.
>> He's got to say, yeah, that even from Tony Kosa's perspective, most of God's people are still apostates >> and that Christia coming made no difference.
>> The astroples out of the temple. And what does Josiah do is he brings reformation. So after the discovery of God's word, there is this was the the common way to conduct initiatory ceremonies for children. then certain Tertillian would not have made that remark about what is the practice where they're baptizing their own children.
This is something he says.
>> Did you want to chime in now or wait until he finishes the >> Well, he's he's this is where somebody brings up infant baptism and David wasn't just sitting there nodding. I'm like as he's sitting there saying Tertullian proves that infant baptism is not apostolic, >> right? Yeah. argument >> comment from Pullan proves that like I have a whole bunch of Presbyterians who'd like to speak with you. Right.
>> Exactly. Exactly.
>> And a whole bunch of Lutherans and a whole bunch of Right. Because he was just in that he was just comparing he was just going to compare Josiah to Luther. Right. Well, Luther would like to have a discussion with you about whether Tertullia proves anything about infant baptism.
>> Was a monotonist. So, he was a premillennialist like Tony Costa.
>> But, um, actually he wasn't. that he was a kill. But um again, the whole point of us saying Tertullian is a heretic is saying he taught against the apostolic faith.
>> So why would you use his comment right to try to prove what the apostolic faith is? You know what monism taught?
Tertalian accepted the idea that Montanis, this human who claimed that he was a prophet, was the comforter, was the pariclete promised by Christ, not the Holy Spirit. Montanas.
Okay. So, this is like Joseph Smith, 1600 years before Joseph Smith.
>> Right. Right. Yes. So him citing Tertalian would be like if he was debating a Muslim and the Muslims cited a Christian who had apostatized and become a Mormon.
>> Right? Or as Muslims commonly do, if they were to cite Bartman, right? A former Christian who apostatized in terms of what Christians believe, right? He would not accept that.
>> So why should we accept him quoting to tell you of all people. And if you want more on infant baptism, uh I just saw um barrel age faith, uh Cashion did a video like last night about infant baptism and infant communion.
>> Yeah.
>> Going back into the second century before Tertalia. So, >> well, another another interesting piece about Tertullian is he was um he was saying in his uh in his works on baptism, he he makes like the argument that any like major sin you commit after baptism sends you straight to hell. So, that's why he wants to delay it. He there was a a quote from >> literally that's what the apostles taught because Tertalian says it.
>> Right. Right. Whoops. All right, Tony.
Well, I guess you're Oh, but according according to Tony Costa, that would be rejecting uh you know, so he's just appealing to uh apostates according to him.
>> Another place in the video he he's going to say that well, he's already said he's going to say St. Erica got uh got something wrong.
He said this was apostolic and it's not.
It's like, well, wait a minute.
Tertalian said something was apostolic and you agree with him, but the guy who was a saint got it wrong.
Okay. Okay.
>> Exactly.
>> That was unknown to the Lord and the apostles. And so what that tells us is that the practice of infant baptism began late, not from the time of Christ.
Of course, our Eastern Orthodox friends will disagree with that.
>> I already know where he's going to go with it, so I'm just going to get to his next question here.
>> The same information over and over again like Muhammad and Aisha, like I've been doing for years. That's an attempt to popularize something so that it becomes common knowledge. Just because I keep bringing up similar things over and over again to make them common knowledge, that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about a script. If you actually had like a um a solid case like a suppose a a gospel script that you memorized or um criticisms of Islam that you memorized or if a Muslim was memorized a presentation of it coming up again, guys, that'll be coming up again.
Soloscript Torah makes every man his own pope.
>> Yeah. Um >> yeah.
>> Yeah. That's this again that's another script that I keep hearing over and over and over again. U and then that's simply not true. I mean Protestantism historically never believed that that every man just becomes his own pope. We do believe in in the authority of the church but that authority is under the authority of God. Uh the police have authority, the courts have authority. Uh government has authority. I mean David, you and I are fathers and we have authority over our families and over our children. But uh solos scriptorera does not mean me in a bible under a cherry tree and just reading my own bible and creating my own church. That is never >> remember this claim because he contradicts himself later. He contradicts this too. He says >> well but this whole approach this whole approach and and and I'm sorry Tony Tony Costa is making a lot of low tier Protestant arguments here. Right. And talk about from a script, right? So someone gives a characterization. Solos scriptor makes every every man his own pope. Okay. And his immediate objection is that's not ever how we've seen ourselves.
Like what?
>> Right.
>> Like if I come and say you're a thief, are you going to respond with I've never seen myself as a thief?
>> Yeah.
>> I've never seen myself as an apostate.
You know, >> I I didn't ask whether you identify as your own pope. I asked I made an assertion that in essence you have become your own pope. Right.
>> Right.
>> Lord have mercy. Yeah. I mean it's it's it's it's absurd. But he will literally contradict himself uh like in less than an hour. He says something like uh I'll wait till we get to that part because we will get to it. But he says, "Oh, it's not just me and my Bible under the tree." And then later he says, "You just need to read the Bible and it's it's it's like clear like you don't need anything to interpret it. It's just like you like you read it and you understand it automatically." Like, "Okay."
>> Right. Well, and this whole thing with secondary authority, they always say that. Well, no, there's other second there's other secondary authorities. And I'm like, "Okay, let's talk about real life. Let's not talk about what you say on paper." Okay?
Something either has authority or it doesn't.
Okay? So, are you going to say William Lane Craig isn't a Christian because he doesn't believe in the Nyine Creed?
>> Right.
>> Right. Every heretic in the history of the church has made arguments based on scripture.
Everyone.
>> Okay. So, you can't just say we're going to use scripture to decide what is heresy and what isn't.
Right.
>> Right.
>> So, someone has to hear both cases.
One side makes a case from scripture, the other side makes a case from scripture. Someone has to hear those two cases and make a decision about which is right.
Okay. So, if you're Roman Catholic, you believe ultimately final appeals, right?
That's the pope. Pope hasn't ruled on everything obviously, but if it gets to the point where it needs a ruling, a Roman Catholic would say that's the pope. Okay?
For Protestants who believe in the right of private judgment, and this is not me making this up or accusing them of this, right? Read the prologes uh uh Hispanic theology.
They say this ultimately the only thing an individual believer's conscience can be bound to is the words of scripture and what they can be logically convinced by inference from those scriptures. Meaning the final court of appeal to hear the two cases and decide which is right is the individual human conscience.
So what Roman Catholicism attributes to the pope to the bishop of Rome, Protestantism, solos scriptor as traditionally understood by Protestants attributes to the individual believer.
So that super chat is a true statement.
Doesn't matter how you identify. It doesn't matter whether Tony Costa likes it being expressed that way. Right? It is the fact of the matter for the orthodox church. It is the collective hierarchs of the church i.e. the councils that are the ultimate court of appeal.
>> Right. That hears Aras make his case and the St. Athanasius's case and decides which one is heresy and which one is true. Right.
>> Right. Absolutely.
>> Never been the view.
>> Yeah. But I I don't identify as a heretic though, you know.
>> Yeah. Exactly. the Protestant whether you're looking at the Westminster confession.
>> Sorry, go ahead.
>> Oh, sorry.
>> The Augsburg confession, none of them uh teach this or believe this. And so we believe that solos scriptor means that there is no higher authority than God's very speech. Nothing can rival God's very speech.
>> I do I want to address something real quick. So JP made a stream. It said uh uh cleave to antiquity says only Orthodox are brothers then cries when what's the title? Then cries when we respond.
Dude, I don't care if you respond. I think it's good that you guys are responding. Uh I think it's good that you guys are are trying to attack or are trying to critique orthodoxy uh because it's going to expose the world uh to the fact that you guys don't know what you're talking about. So, I think it's good that David Wood is trying to do this like coalition with all of the well-known anti-Orthodox uh you know figures that aren't I mean they're none of them are good but this will just expose to even David Wood's audience which is much larger than most of their audience that Protestantism is cooked. I mean evangelicalism especially is cooked. Um if if JP Mer and all these guys who were considered by most almost everyone some of the most low tier people on the internet if they start to get like some traction even more people are going to see how cooked uh Protestantism is. So, I would I mean Dave David Wood, this is better than pretending you don't have an opinion on these things and pretending you're neutral and then being like subversive and sending a bunch of viewers over to some channel that actually is. Uh here we have something to bite against. So, this is actually an improvement from just, you know, character attacks or whatever.
>> Yeah. And and the Orthodox Church is Christ's church.
It's the truth. So yes, >> people hear about it and investigate it, they're going to end up coming to the truth. So it's going to backfire on them.
>> Right. Absolutely.
>> And so if script >> I'm hoping that by David Wood doing all of this, he starts to because he's he doesn't seem to be a stupid guy. like he might he might be.
>> I don't I don't think he I don't think he is. I I don't >> I don't have a good beat on him. I don't know exactly what's going on here, but other than just he's he's found himself in a defensive posture.
>> Yes.
>> He feels like he's being attacked by at least a group of Orthodox people and so he's trying to just defend himself by fighting back.
>> Yes.
>> Against them. Right. Well, I I I think he's trying to distract from the Godlogic stuff. So, he's like he's like, "Well, I'll I'll be the shield. I'll be the shield for God logic." Um or something like I'll I'll take their I'll take their attention off of him or something. I think that's where he's going with it. But I don't I don't think he's a dumb guy. I think David Wood is actually, you know, relatively intelligent. And I think that as he looks around and he's like, "Huh, these guys don't seem like they know what they're talking about. Wait a minute.
These are the champions of Protestantism. Wait, nobody knows what they're doing and they all disagree with each other and they don't have any actual good critiques.
Maybe I should reassess my worldview. I think I'm hoping and I'm praying that's where he ends up with it. And if you're watching this live stream about 600 something of you are watching, make sure you include David Wood in your prayers tonight because uh you know hearts can be softened.
>> Anthony speech his breathing.
>> Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
>> Antony Costa.
>> Yes.
Don't pray for Toby.
>> He's less of a good faith actor in the in all this, but you you should you should still pray for him because I mean, >> yes. Yes.
>> He he seems to me to have a lot of zeal that's not according to knowledge. We'll put it that way.
>> Yes. Pray for Tony as well.
>> Doubt word. There's nothing in the world like that. And so, if it is the speech of God, then that overrules any church father, any reformer, any tradition. And so, we're talking about ultimate authority here. We're not talking about relative authority, but ultimate authority. And so, we don't just think that we're just going to be our own little pope and and come up with our own ideas. That is simply a caricature. And it's it's a terrible straw man argument.
And and really, when you keep talking like that, it it becomes this competitive mantra that Protestants never believed in officially in their documents or their creeds. So, >> Protestants never officially believed they were their own pope.
>> They don't put that statement. They don't put each of us as our own pope in their creeds. Yes. Therefore, therefore you cannot characterize what they have said to you in that way by way of critique. Yes. Now the the right he I noticed in a couple of places where I stopped the video. I was just clicking through uh and this is not specific to Tony Costa and I'm not saying to say this that he's dumb or something. This is epidemic among internet debaters. Mhm.
>> do not know what logical fallacies actually are.
>> Right. Yes.
>> Right. There's a there's a point right at the beginning of this where somebody says, "Why are you having him on here?
He's not an expert on orthodoxy." And he's like, "That's an ad hominemum attack."
>> Yeah. Exactly.
>> You're attacking me instead of my arguments. And I'm like, "Bro, you haven't presented any arguments yet. The stream just started. Like, that's literally not an ad hominemum attack.
He's questioning your expertise." And so when he questions your expert, like if someone questions my expertise, I come on here and I'm talking about the Bible, right? I would say, well, I've got a PhD in biblical studies from Emmer University. I've got I published articles and this this and then the person hearing that can decide, oh, okay, well, it sounds like he's an expert. Or they could hear that and say, oh, sounds like maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about. Right?
>> Like, but that in no wise is that an ad hominemum attack, right? An ad homonym attack in this context would be he lays out a very detailed argument why some orthodox doctrine is wrong and somebody replies and just says well you're not orthodox so no one should listen to you that would be an ad hominemum attack right same thing with straw man people do this all the time >> a straw man is not a mischaracterization of your opin of your opinion that's a mischaracterization of your opinion right a straw man is when someone purports to be summarizing your argument and they deliberately do it badly so that they can then easily refute it.
>> Right. Right. Right.
>> Okay. Uh so he and and then you've got to prove that that's a weak for and and then what you have to do is you have to give a better version of the argument. You have to say the argument isn't right. Right. So if he wanted to address this this way, no, we don't say we're our own pope. We Right. But see, he doesn't address what the statement means. What would it mean to be your own pope? Well, it means you're the one who decides which interpretation of scripture is correct, >> right? He doesn't even address any of what that statement is saying in his response to it.
>> Right. Well, this was like when one of the IFB guys was uh I I'd responded to one of Stephen Anderson's posts earlier today on baptism and uh you know I said, "Hey, can you show me anyone that shares your interpretation that baptism doesn't save within the first thousand years of the church?" And uh you know um so I said after after the time of the apostles and within the first thousand years of the church so that way he doesn't just say, "Oh, it's in the Bible, dude." You know, like my own interpretation.
And uh one of the IFB guys was like, "That's a continuum fallacy. Classical continuum fallacy." I'm like, "Oh my goodness, you guys don't know." Like, "This is ridiculous."
>> Uh well, unfortunately, most of the people that watch like debates and things like this, I mean, X isn't like an actual debate, but people that watch debates, unfortunately, most of them don't actually know what fallacies are either. So, when you've got two people that don't know what they're talking about butting heads, it's like that's a fallacy. That's a you know you're begging you're begging the question that's a straw man. Most people don't know what a straw man is. Most people don't know what any of these fallacies are. This is absurd.
>> But you also you can't just be like that's a straw man.
>> Right.
>> Then say nothing else.
>> You got to explain.
>> You got to say that's not how we argue it. Here's how we argue it. Right.
>> Correct.
>> Um >> that's absurd.
>> This would be another example, David, of of that script we're talking about.
Um, and uh, it is weird because um, one of the things they've been just blasting me on recently is they say, "What church do you send people to when they leave Islam and become Christians?" And I point out, "Well, most of this is online. Most of it's a Muslim leaving Islam and becoming a Christian and I see him in the comments section and he's saying, "What what church do I?" Well, I have no I have no idea what churches are even available in his country and so on.
So, I give the same advice and I I say, "Start reading your Bible. start reading your Bible. Go um check whatever whatever church is is nearby you and make sure that what they're preaching lines up with the Bible. You can ask for a statement of faith or whatever they have available and make sure it lines up with the Bible. And the Orthod bros just lose their minds like oh yeah. So people just decide they just get to decide how they interpret the scripture and then they go find a church that lines up with their with their interp. And I'm just thinking it's like well I mean at the very least someone would have to be deciding which church to join whether the Orthodox or or a Protestant church.
So me and my Bible under the tree.
>> Well, yeah. Well, and again, from their own from their own perspective, internal critique. This is a baby Christian.
>> Yes.
>> They don't know how to read the Bible, right? They don't know how to read and interpret the Bible. They haven't read the whole thing. They haven't read the Old Testament to understand what the New Testament is. They don't, right? Like, how are they how are they supposed to judge this? Mhm.
>> Their local church is preaching the prosperity gospel. How do they know that's not I mean, the guy's up there quoting the Bible.
He's quoting the Bible. He's reading from a Bible. I I guess it's biblical, right? If this guy's legitimately someone who's been a Muslim their whole life, they know nothing about Christianity.
How are they not going to go to a prosperity gospel church? How are the Jehovah's Witnesses not going to grab them? How are the, you know, all these people are reading from a Bible.
>> Mhm.
>> And they're going to be very eager to tell this new convert how that new convert should read the Bible. They'll start discipling him, right?
And and these are Protestants. They believe in disciplehip, right? I I mean, I'm assuming they're Protestants, right? Tony Aosta identifies as a Protestant. I don't know if David Wood even identifies as a Protestant. He says he's Protestant by default, >> just a Christian in general, right? Like >> Yeah.
>> Um but they they believe in disciplehip, right? And so which church you go to is critically important because you're submitting to the authority. Even if you're going to say it's a secondary authority, you're still submitting to it. That's how this person is going to learn to read the Bible.
>> They go to a Calvinist church, they're going to learn to read Romans in one way. They go to a free will Baptist church, they're going to learn to read it a different way.
right? Like this is just basic reality.
And so I think David Wood there just exposed a huge flaw in how he does ministry and it's this is all online.
Christianity is not Islam. You can't just say the shahada and boom, you're good.
>> Yes. And and this is and this is why >> not the shahada, man. And this is why honestly David Wood, you know, when we point these things out, we're not we're not pointing this out to like condemn you or say like you're, you know, whatever. Uh we're saying, dude, look at look at what you're doing. Look at the effects of what you're doing. If you had the orthodox framework, as we were talking about earlier, the the presuppositions and all of these things, I mean, you would be safeguarded from basically all of the all of these errors that you're making when you're sending people to these random churches. Even in your own apologetics, you would have a comprehensive uh framework to be able to answer questions when people bring this up. Somebody asks you a question, which church do I go to? Your answer shouldn't just be, I don't know, read your Bible, figure it out yourself, buddy. Like, that's not a good response.
>> Um, >> yeah. Yeah.
>> How much easier would it be? Oh, sorry.
Go ahead.
>> He he doesn't like So, I think he thinks that we're like demanding he become Orthodox and only send people to Orthodox churches. Now, I'm not demanding it. I think it'd be great if that's what he did, >> right? But there are other ways he could get around this criticism. You want to know one of the easiest ways he could get around this criticism?
He could have somebody in his ministry maintain a list >> of churches that he considers to be bibleelving churches, right? Like tell people, hey, if if you're going to go to a Lutheran church, don't go to an ELCA church, go to a Missouri Senate church or whatever, right? Like from a Protestant perspective, right?
I'm just saying from his >> I'm sure I'm sure they have that, but the problem is most of those people on the list are like their business affiliates.
>> Well, yeah.
>> You know, >> well, that's that's a different problem, right? Correct. You take that list and turn it into a sponsored ads by Google, then that's >> correct.
>> A whole other >> problem.
A whole other issue. You've got you've got uh you've got fake fake synagogue New York City business church with uh uh uh Eduardo or Yeah. Eduardo the rabbi.
It's literally the guy's name.
>> So, >> but the idea that you're giving them no guidance whatsoever >> and you think that's just the way it has to be. I mean, that seems bizarre to me.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. And that's what people are questioning. So, yeah, this is this is a thing. This is a wisdom thing. This particular point is I think a wisdom thing for what >> right and maybe if if you don't hear anything else that orthodox people are trying to say to you hear this right proverbs right when someone criticizes you when someone offers a criticism right even if they offer it to you in a hostile way an angry way an incorrect way a sinful way right you could take that criticism ism.
The first thing you should do in humility and in wisdom is analyze it to see if there's any truth to it.
>> It is foolish biblically to proceed from the assumption that all of your actions and the way you've structured your ministry is perfect, >> right?
>> And there's nowhere you could improve and there's no flaws and there's nothing you've let slip slip through the cracks.
All right? Right? So if you hear nothing else from orthodox people, hear that and take some time to think about, hey, maybe there is something valid here in terms of disciplehip is a real thing.
Someone who you're converting from Islam probably knows zero about Christianity >> and getting them into a place where they're going to be discipled by the wrong people is arguably not going to leave them in a place that's much better than Islam.
>> Right. Exactly. depending on what that place is that disciples >> and that's a real concern.
>> It seems like Protestant restorationists are arguing the further you get from the original church, the closer you get to the original church lunacy.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And the Protestant reformers were not arguing that.
>> And that's part of that's part of why so Tony Tony Costa is trying to be >> well he's trying to be reformed and a Baptist at the same time.
Mhm.
>> And so he's got two radically different competing ecclesiologies going on. The Baptist ecclesiology is essentially restorationist, >> right?
>> Because he's got to say everybody was baptizing babies for minimally a thousand years, >> right? Which think about that for a second. Tony Costa believes not a single human being was validly baptized for a thousand years.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Insane.
>> Not a single one. You don't get more restorationists than that, right?
Baptism was restored by a bunch of followers of Zwingley who went rogue, right? So, you have to be a restorationist to be a Baptist. Okay?
But at the same time, you look at the magisterial reformers like Calvin and Luther. They were not restorationists.
They were adamantly not restorationists.
They saw themselves in continuity, right, with the church. Lutheran still, if you get a good Lutheran, um I think Cooper is capable of making this argument. He's just really wishy-washy on streams and stuff. But if he was feeling his oats one day, right, Lutheran will come out and argue they are the real inheritors of the Western church.
>> If you want to see Western Christianity in its true form, it's Lutheranism, right? They will make that fullthroated, right? And that uh it was Roman Catholicism that deviated, right?
uh from them. Um so yeah, so he's trying to have it both ways, right? It's it's basically restorationist, but then when there happens to be a church father who agrees with him, well, we'll pluck him out, right? We'll pluck him out and then well, all the places where he disagrees with me, he's part of that apostate church. But you know, uh these few places where he agrees with me, right?
I'll keep him. And that's I mean Gavin Ortland's a quote unquote reformed Baptist, too, as far as I could tell.
You notice he does the same thing. You notice, >> right? And these this is really this fundamentally you can't be a reformed Baptist. They're fundamentally incompatible.
>> Um >> so Redeem Zoomer, you hear that? You're correct on that issue.
>> Does he say that? No. I'll I'll say yes.
If he goes around telling them they're not really >> Yes, he says that all the time.
>> He is absolutely correct about that.
uh to David's credit and not sure if he was serious, but he did say he'd considered converting to Orthodox when Ridban joined later. There you go.
>> Well, pray for pray for David.
>> Yeah, like I said, I think he's I think he's a good faith actor in this. I just think he's feeling defensive and backed into a corner right now.
>> Yes.
>> Which isn't an ideal situation to sort of evaluate these things.
>> Right. Right. Here you go. In fact, Eastern Orthodox toxy um I mean in theory in theory Orthodox Christians have leaders over them. If the leaders ever order these guys, stop harassing these guys. They're going after Islam. Leave them alone. I would probably like lose interest instantly and never be interested in in criticizing uh Orthodox Christians um at all. But uh I'm going to see this through otherwise I'm going to I'm I'm going to see this through to the end. If the claim is you have to be debating us on the true church to just be allowed to do anything else, well then let's let's prepare to debate. And it shouldn't just be me. If everyone's going to confront this, everyone needs to be everyone needs to get to the point where everyone can debate these guys when they when they run their mouths. And so we'll we'll get everyone up to speed. Don't hold your breath on that positive argument.
>> Yeah. Good good luck with that. Good luck with getting these They've been trying for 2,000 years or not even that long for 500 years.
>> Again, not the complaint, >> right? Exactly. The complaint is yes, Islam bad, right? It is good that you are converting people from Islam. We have questions about what you're converting them to.
>> Yeah. Exactly.
>> That's the issue.
>> And yes, as Orthodox Christians, we think obviously, we got to be honest, we think you should be converting them to Orthodox Christianity. Okay.
>> Exactly. Barring that, right?
We're not just demanding that happen.
We're not just like, "We're going to harass you until you become Orthodox," right?
We we want to see you like taking the that criticism and that issue seriously.
>> And addressing it in some way, even if you choose to address it from within a Protestant context, right? At least address it.
>> Yeah.
Exactly. Well, and I think I think the other part of the criticism was that some of these people who are in this anti-Islamianity sphere do have very anti-Orthodox uh positions and uh >> I don't think David Wood does, but some of them definitely do. Yes.
>> Correct. And they will funnel they will funnel their viewers.
>> Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
>> Tony Costa just said we're an apostate church.
>> Yeah, exactly.
>> And I didn't see David Wood objecting.
>> Right.
I didn't see. No, no, no. There are brothers in Christ. I didn't see him saying that.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I mean, it's it's one thing if you're going to claim Look, if you're going to be an anti-Islam apologist, but then you're also going to critique orthodoxy, that's fine. That's actually that's preferred rather than pretending to be neutral and then funneling viewers to go watch an inquiry, get gaslit, which is exactly what the God Logic 2 channel did. And then um I mean it didn't work. Anyway, that inquirer uh uh came back. They were they were all celebrating. They're like, "Oh, look. We got him. We got him to say he's not going to look into orthodoxy anymore."
And even the Godlogic 2 channel was commenting like, "Woohoo." Like in the comments or whatever.
>> Um so like if you're going to pretend to be neutral, don't be doing this kind of thing. That was the original critique.
Now these responses are just responding to your bad arguments against orthodoxy.
So, I mean, >> yeah, >> the longer you put out videos on this kind of thing, the more response videos you're going to get. It's not harassment. It's just you're making claims. We're going to answer them.
>> But again, if David Wood does watch this, think about Tony Costa debates Muslims. No, no one has made this complaint to him.
>> Yeah, exactly.
>> Uh, James White debates Muslims. No one has made this complaint to him. James White, Tony Costa, regardless of what I think about their beliefs, they're very clear about what they believe and what they're trying to convert people to.
>> Absolutely >> right. You you watch James White debate a Muslim, when he gets to his closing statement, he starts preaching and he's preaching reform doctrine, right, of sotiology mixed with a little Baptist other stuff, right? But it's very clear what his position is. He is making a very clear positive argument. one I disagree with, one I think is flawed, but he's making a clear positive argument. The critique here is that David Wood is not making a positive argument, >> right?
>> He's converting them from Islam to something nebulous.
>> Yes. Correct.
>> And that's dangerous for those people who are converting in terms of what they are going to fall into.
>> Yeah. And and to be fair, that's the same thing guys like JP Uncut and them do. Uh they convert them to nothing.
>> Yeah. It's just whatever whatever you decide to go into as long as it's not Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
>> And I know that David Wood, if he got someone to leave Islam to become an atheist, would not consider that a victory.
>> Yeah. Exactly >> right. He doesn't actually want to convert them to nothing. He wants to convert them to Christianity. But there is no generic Christianity. There's just a whole bunch of actual things calling themselves Christianity.
And you have to decide which one is right and which one you're going to convert people to.
>> Yep.
>> I'm I know they've got a positive argument and I'm going to hear it out.
But that'll be Thursday. That'll be Thursday. So that'll be with Orthodox Ethos. And I I said uh I I said uh general plan. He's >> he's gonna have Father Peter here is on the show Thursday. So that'll be an interesting episode. free to modify it, but I said you could take 30 to 60 minutes just uninterrupted laying out your case and then take another 30 to 60 minutes and and take questions from the uh from the chat and so on. Um so we'll see. We we'll we'll hear that. Well, that'll be on Thursday, guys. Middle school tactics reminds me of Chrome Dome Shamoon. It's very rude. Uh here in the south, we know not to mess with Baptist.
It'll costa get it. Sorry, couldn't resist dad joke. Yeah, that was pretty pretty bad. Look at the chat. Orthod bros acting like da guys. They they always do that. Why? because those tactics work with people of certain, you know, dispositions and so on. So you got people who always take advantage of that. Sam J plus Sam equals the Durian Church of Eastern Orb ory.
Sam Sam the orbs. The orbs. You silly grifters. Take my money y'all. Thank you. Thank you for helping helping the grift. Let's see. David, I'm Orthodox and for what it's worth, this disgusting unholy alliance between Eastern Orthodox and Dawagandis goes against every holy fiber within Christendom according to not only history but scripture as well.
Yeah, I would think about and going going back to what uh to what Tony was talking about earlier. It's like we would expect I would expect Eastern Orthodox to get this more than anybody, right? I would expect Eastern Orthodox to get this more than anybody when there's like all sorts of divisions and Christians can't unite because of some some >> Yeah, but we're not actually teaming up with Muslims. That's your >> No one is teaming up with Muslims.
>> Muslims are dumb. You a baby a baby could beat a Muslim in a debate.
>> Nobody's teaming up with the Muslims.
We're like Jay's done a bunch of different debates against Muslims. Go watch videos on my channel. I've done tons of videos on Islam.
>> Um, nobody's teaming up with Muslims.
Somebody said bingo.
>> To to Johnny Metropolis, don't if you're really Orthodox, don't debase yourself like this.
>> Right. You are debasing. You are You are demeaning yourself.
>> Oh, I'm one of the good ones.
>> Yeah, >> I'm one of I'm not I'm not like the I'm one of the good ones. Okay, that's that's demeaning. Okay, you're graveling.
You you you as an Orthodox Christian have a seat at the table, a seat at Christ's table. You don't need the crumbs that fall off of David Wood's table.
>> Okay?
Because guess what? He ain't got the meal. He ain't got the full meal there for you to right. Why? Why? You have a seat at the table. You have the fullness of the faith. You have Christ himself.
Okay. You don't you don't need to gravel for the approval of evangelicals or Protestants or someone else, right? That like >> Yeah. You're one of you're one of the good ones.
>> Yeah, exactly. This is why I was I was talking about this the other day. I was like, you know, um the to me, honestly, one of the most disgusting things you can do is, you know, and I I don't I try not to judge any other Orthodox, so I'm not I wouldn't even name any name or anything like this. Um, but if you're like an Orthodox guy and you go on to like a panel of Protestants to complain about other Orthodox, that's probably like the slimiest thing you can do in my opinion. Like why why would you go on to a panel of uh the heterodox and complain about your brothers or something? Like there are people who are literally going on shows, Protestant shows that are Orthodox that complain about other Orthodox Christians. Yeah, it's absurd. No, >> I know. And I I kind of know the person you're alluding to and I will be a little kinder to him.
>> Yes, >> that's in that I saw a little bit of a response from him and it kind of sounds like he got snookered a little bit in terms of what the panel was going to be about.
>> Yeah.
>> Um in general, I would say the same thing applies that I just said like you don't need to try to be one of the good ones.
>> Yes.
>> And and try and get their approval, right? You're a member of Christ Church.
They should be coming to you for wisdom and understanding of the scriptures and and the things of God, right? Um and asking you questions. Um so, but um yeah, don't don't do e dimitude, right? Like that's >> Yeah, you don't need to be a demi. Don't go onto their show and be a demi. I'm one of the nice ones, please.
>> Yeah. Like you you don't you don't need to do that. Even even any specific person aside, I think this is just a good principle going forward for us is just to understand this concept that doesn't help anyone.
>> Yeah, >> that doesn't help anyone. When when when we go out, I I really liked what um I really liked what um good grief, I don't know why I'm blanking on his name right now. The priest that was just on my show two seconds ago, not you, but >> I was going to say about me >> a metaphorical two seconds ago. Uh this was um somebody remind me in the chat.
I'm losing my mind. Father Tom Soka.
Okay.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah.
>> What what he said at the end of that show was like perfect. It was perfection. It was it was chef's kiss.
It was one of the most beautiful things I've heard and it was much needed. And I actually I want to find the clip real quick and play that real quick because this is what time it is right now. It's not a time for orthodox Christians to attack one another, especially uh, you know, to uplift the heterodox.
This is a time for unity. This is a time for us to build one another up. Um, so let me pull this up because this was at the end of our last show or the show that he came on my show, Father Tom Soka here. Listen to the words that he says because this is wisdom. This is what time it is right now.
>> I just I want to honestly say this. I love you guys. I really do. I know that, you know, things have been said years and years and years ago, but we have to as Orthodox Christians work together. If you know a house divided against itself cannot stand and let's all work together, support one another, love one another. And I'm talking about the Orthodox, right? We have to do that.
This is not we're we it doesn't help us to um denounce one another or to undermine one another. Let's work together, love one another. The fields are white for harvest and you guys are doing a great job in um growing a lot of uh beautiful crops for the Lord. I just I want >> That's what time it is right now. That's beautiful. That's what we need.
>> Yeah. I'll even I'll even name names.
Okay.
Jay Dyer and Ethan Wayne are both my brothers in Christ.
They're Orthodox.
>> They're my brothers in Christ. They are Orthodox Christians in good standing.
Right. Ethan Wayne may someday be my brother priest. Right now, I have I have brothers and sisters. Right? Anybody who has siblings knows you don't always agree. Right.
>> Yes.
>> Right. Sometimes you get irritated.
Sometimes you have disagreements, arguments, you got brothers. Sometimes you get in full-on fist fights. Right.
That's you know you go times where you don't talk. Then you sort things out and you come back together and you argue and right this cycle happens. Right. But all of that happens in the family.
>> Yes. Correct.
>> Okay.
and somebody outside the family says something about one of my sisters, wife, uncle, right? Cousin, right? There's going to be trouble. I may end up getting leasized, right, by what happens, >> right? Like you don't go out and badmouth family.
>> Yes.
>> In front of the world, >> right?
this. Even if you're not getting along, even if they're irritating the heck out of you, that's something you deal with inside the family.
>> Yes.
>> On all sides.
>> Yes.
Absolutely. Um All right, let's keep going.
>> You know, some differences and so on.
It's I mean, you have certain certain groups that'll just eat you alive in that situation. And so that's that's why it's that's why it's that's why it's weird to me.
So, thank you for that. And by the way, we're on the same page. And I'll just say uh lots of lots of Eastern Orthodox um guys are doing awesome work. I mean uh a bunch of the I mentioned this I think yesterday the day before a lot of the people who like turn things around completely at Speaker's Corner whereas you know five or six years ago DAWA guys were all on the on offense constantly surrounding Christians harassing them yelling at them and it's totally shifted to where Dawa guys are are terrified to engage. Uh, a lot of the a lot of the guys responsible for that complete flip are uh were were orthodox I mentioned that you may have posted it before I mentioned it but >> blessings Dr. Costa from one of your Toronto Baptist Seminary students back in 2014 to 2019. I hope you're well.
>> Thank you. Thank you so much.
>> I'm a Protestant and I highly recommend talking to Father Steven D. Young to learn about Eastern Orthodoxy. He was one of the most knowledgeable and detailed speakers I've watched on YouTube. Yeah, he's that may be the per that may be the priest who was recommended most right after Father Josiah Trenim. Um so but yeah, I'm open to anyone want anyone wants to make the positive case. Um or go into a kind of a a deeper a deeper dive on some of the big controversial controversial issues.
So the ones this is again this is guys this is very limited interaction I've had on this stuff but what seem to be the big issues are the icons and the intercession uh of saints that's a big one. the marology, that's two, and the exclusivity. There are lots of there are lots of other things, but those seem to be the uh the big the big three.
>> For the record, I'd be happy to talk to David Wood about.
>> There you go, David, if you're watching this. Absolutely.
>> Um, one peer-reviewed article by Evangelos Truglia that supports first century authorship. This is one article in the sea of scholarship that says otherwise. I'll go with the consensus of scholars on this one.
Um, don't know what that means. Um, >> we're talking about Dyius.
>> They're probably arguing about that in the chat. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Was that was that on >> by the way, open open debate offer Craig's had for like forever if anyone wants to debate him on whether or not those particular umh I forget the way that he articulated but what whe whether you want to uh argue the thesis of that scholarship he will he will debate you happily to see whether or not pseudo Dianis is actually Dianius at least certain recentions of the text >> and I'll say as I've said before if you want to just out yourself very quickly as not being a scholar go ahead and say that people should agree with the consensus of scholarship, >> right?
>> Yeah. Well, it's like it's like if if a bunch of different scholars say one thing and then you have new peer-reviewed scholarship saying, "Ah, we've got some new information that might actually >> that's how scholarship works. There's a consensus and then everyone attacks that consensus to try to overturn it or refine it, right? Or nuance it, right?
That's you don't just say, "Oh, there's a consensus, so that must be right."
>> Yeah. Exactly.
>> Exactly.
That um what is it? Dionius or whatever.
I'm not sure what that was a followup to.
>> Let's see. Tony Costa doesn't believe Catholic or Orthodox or orthobaptisms are real. He would agree with the reverse of that gasoline comic. What is your point, David Wood?
>> Well, what I would say, David, is uh I I I'm a I'm a cradle Baptist. I'm I'm a Baptist minister. I don't believe in infant baptism. And and that is why again Roman Catholic Church just because you baptized Nibil uh David in the name of the Trinity Roman Cath Catholic law or canon law says that baptism can be administered by anyone in the name of the trinity as long as it's in the trinity's name the formula even an atheist if an atheist doctor if a baby's born in the in the deliver room and the doctor takes water and pours it over the head of the infant and says I baptize in the name of the father and the holy spirit that's considered >> sorry go ahead >> I don't know what this has to do with anything why does Roman Catholic cannon law >> yeah I don't know Why he's apply? Why he's appealing to Roman Catholic?
>> That's right. He's now approving Roman Catholic.
>> Be correct.
>> What's up, Jim Bob? Good to see you in the chat.
>> Yeah, that's that's wild.
>> How you say that about me? I like you just fine.
>> Jim Bob, you take that back though.
>> Talk about Tony Costa. Yeah, that's that's weird. I don't know why he would do like an appeal to authority to the Roman Catholic canon law system. That's odd.
Yeah.
>> Baptism. So, as as a >> cradle Baptist, which means believers baptism, I I don't we don't believe in infant baptism. We don't practice it.
But that doesn't mean that you're going to hell. Uh we believe that the gospel is the power of God into salvation to everyone who believes, the Jew first and then the Greek. Romans 1:16. And we believe that it is faith in Christ alone that saves, not baptism. And so, there are people in the Eastern Orthodox Church that are genuinely saved. They're probably babes in Christ. They're young, but they're saved because not because of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but in spite of the Eastern Orthodox Church teaching. I mean, the reformers were Roman Catholics before before they they were booted out. And and so I believe that anyone who puts their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16 30-31 says, "What must I do to be saved?" Notice the answer Paul gives, David. The answer Paul gives is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your household." Notice, believe, have faith, trust in him, and we're saved by grace through faith.
>> What?
>> If you believe, your household will be saved.
>> What was that, Tony Costa?
>> Mind's blown.
>> It's a gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. And so notice that the the gospel message, David, the gospel message is rooted in the death of Christ, the burial, the resurrection of Christ. It is the power of God into salvation to all who believe and are justified by faith alone in Christ. And so Romans 8:1, there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ.
Um, and that is that is really this is really where it's at. It is the gospel.
Paul says, if you get that gospel wrong in in Galatians 1:6-9, if you get that gospel wrong, he says you are anathema.
And then he says that if we the apostles were to come back and preach another gospel, count us to be anathema. So you can get all your theology right, you can get the trinity right, all the fundamentals of the faith right. Paul says if you get the gospel wrong and it's another gospel, that is anathema.
And so the Judaizers that Paul was contending with, he never said they denied the body resurrection of Christ or Christ.
>> Yeah. Well, it's like I mean he doesn't >> coverage to Judaizers if they're so bad.
Yeah, exactly. Exactly.
Exactly. Well, that's that's funny because I was talking to those IFB guys and they were talking about that uh Leviticus passage talking about how to handle people of certain in inclinations.
Um and they were saying that still applies today. We should still do that.
We should line them up. So on and so forth. And I was talking to them and I was like I was like so what you're like you believe like you have to hold to the letter of the Old Testament law. So what? You got to be like circumcised to be saved. You got to be, you know, like what what what are all your positions? You don't realize that by taking this line of reasoning, you're basically arguing exactly like a Judaizer, >> right?
>> It's interesting. And then would fall under the, you know, the Galatians and ATMA. But go ahead.
>> Don't get lost in the uh plenteousness of Tony Costa's verbiage here in answering this question.
He is agreeing with that super chat.
>> He is saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church is anathema.
>> He is saying that when we preach what we call the gospel, we are spraying gasoline.
>> Right?
>> He is saying he agrees with the reverse of that meme directed toward orthodoxy.
That is exactly what he is saying now.
And he's hoping that by muddying the waters he can make them appear deep. And right that that if he had just simply said yes that would look mean right but that is what he is saying. He has already called the Orthodox Church an apostate church. He's called the church of Christ the apostate church >> and he is now saying we don't have the gospel and that we are >> anathema.
>> Okay. And if you believe the Holy Spirit indwells Christ Church, arguably he's blaspheing the Holy Spirit right now.
>> Lord have mercy.
>> Right? Because if the Holy Spirit is at work of the Orthodox Church, doesn't have to be full-on orthodoxy is true. Just if the Holy Spirit is working in the Orthodox Church and he's calling that anathema, that's blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
What they denied was the gospel of grace by faith alone. They wanted to add works to it. So the gnostics, the Judaizers, very very old movements that go right back to the apostles. These movements were immediately called out because they were preaching out of the gospel and that's really where it's at. Uh David, I don't see the gospel of grace preached in these churches in in Eastern North.
>> And uh people can I'll get you a question here so I can restart. No problem. No problem.
>> See um could be the one world religion is rising. Abrahamic faith house coexists etc. So strange seeming things will come together or divide in my opinion. Oh yeah weird stuff >> things will come on for ortho debate.
>> Brilliant.
Brilliant. I predict things will either come together or divide.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> One of these two teams will win the Super Bowl. See, I am a prophet.
>> Nice.
>> Bates. Yeah, I've heard that. Um yeah, >> he's debated a number of Eastern Orthodox uh priests. Uh I think I think D Young I think he did debate the young Father D Young.
>> Oh no. Hey, really? Oh yeah, that would be I would >> You don't say. Did that happen? Is that >> discussion? He hasn't debated a number of He's had one discussion with me.
>> Right. Right.
>> Even thinking about that. I I because uh I want to I want to set up one or two debates, but I could also just watch watch and review some uh some other debates that have taken place. That's cool. Yeah. Maybe Kevin Ortland. Uh he even went to Athens and uh he had it was more of a dialogue with a with a a Greek Orthodox priest there. But uh yeah, he's debated some of these fellows.
>> That's cool. Let's see. Yeah.
>> Hey, you're back.
>> Yep. And uh got to adjust all the brightness and stuff.
>> Stupid program.
>> Wait, did he just say he's debated some of these brothers?
>> Is that what he said?
I don't know. Let me go back.
>> Oh, yeah. weird stuff.
>> That's possible.
>> You need to get Gavin Ortland on for ortho debates. Yeah, I've heard that.
Um, yeah, >> he's debated a number of Eastern Orthodox uh priests. Uh, I think I think De Young I think he did debate the young Father D. Young.
>> Oh, hey, really? Oh, yeah. That would be I wasn't even thinking about that. I I because uh I want to I want to set up one or two debates, but I could also just watch watch and review some uh some other debates that have taken place.
That's cool. Yeah, maybe.
Gavin Ortland. Uh he even went to Athens and uh he had it was more of a dialogue with a with a a Greek Orthodox priest there, but uh yeah, he's debated some of these fellows.
>> Fellows.
>> See? Yeah.
>> Hey, you're back.
>> I was going to say all the >> a minute ago.
>> Yeah, exactly.
>> And stuff stupid program.
>> One thing I find so funny about the Orthodox, they can't define an ecumenical council. Uh def uh definitely they reject woman headship but they accept a second which came years after the true council of hyia in 754 AD. The woman blinded her son.
>> He has a lot of stuff being thrown into the mix there. David the uh the the council of ha condemned uh the use of images in the church and so there was a huge iconoclass controversy uh that did that did away with icons. And so when they say that icons are part of the churches goes back to the apostles.
That's simply not the case. Um there was a lot of controversy. A lot of blood was shed over this. And some of them would say those who affirmed the icons would say well the alcantic class were influenced by the Muslims. The Muslims were against images and and and so forth. But that's not their arguments.
Their arguments was it violated holy scripture that you're not to worship images or icons or pictures. Now they changed it to veneration. So they try to play the semantic game by saying no it's not really worship it's veneration. Now when she says when he says about the woman blinding her son the the last empress of the east was Irene. And it's funny because Irene David means peace in Greek.
>> And Irene, >> what was that?
>> How was she the last empress?
>> I don't know.
>> He's just he's just yapping. He's just yapping.
>> Like I like how he's like, "So they did this this iconoclastic council did away with iconography. So when they say it went back to the apostles, that's not true."
>> Like what? Like how could they do away with it if it wasn't >> I this is an excellent this is an excellent point here since David Wood only knows the friend enemy distinction David if you are an iconoclast you're siding with the Muslims >> yes >> if you're an iconoclast David look I'm gonna I'm gonna make this big David Wood if you side with the Muslims on iconoclasm this is an issue right the Muslims are iconoclass we're not You need to you need to become orthodox so you're not siding with the Dawagandists.
You don't want to support jihad, do you?
>> Yeah. The the other point there is that no, the iconoclass were not arguing that at all because the iconoclass all accepted the veneration of the cross, the veneration of the gospel book, right? and uh the veneration of the altar.
So they did not oppose the veneration of anything.
The question was are icons, portrait icons worthy of the same veneration as those other things, right? So they were not arguing against the material. They're not even arguing against imagery in churches. Iconoclass churches had they didn't just whitewash the walls. They had these big murals of paradise of like nature scenes like trees and animals and stuff.
And where did they get that? They got that from the temple in the Old Testament that had the trees and >> carryover. Yes.
>> So they were not against imagery even per se. Right. It was a very particular question. Mhm.
>> Right. Of do we venerate these particular images in the same way that we venerate these other particular things, >> right?
>> Uh is the one who pushed the second council of Nika in 787 AD. And uh this woman actually had her son Constantine V 6th. I believe she had her son's eyes gouged out because he wanted to take the throne. She was the only female empress that they had. Um, and so because he wanted to take over the throne, he not only did she imprison her son, but she had his eyes gouged out. And this is the woman that oversaw the second council of Nika, um, which is the last of the ecumenical councils and and call for veneration of icons and so on. So yeah, that's that's a very controversial issue. And um the main the main church father that pushed for this idea of icon icon veneration is John of Damascus. And he's considered the last of the church fathers. And his arguments are are really not persuasive. I mean in many ways he he did not and here's here's related to us right now. David John of Damascus was nobody of the of the Muslims. I mean he had no no um idea that we should just be nice to Muslims and comp and join forces with them. He clearly denounced them denounced the Quran and so forth. But to justify uh icon veneration unfortunately he went on to talk about the incarnation uh blesses matter and therefore because the incarn God became flesh God entered into the material world and therefore it's okay to venerate material objects that's a non-secary that doesn't even follow logically but anyway just put out there but anyway >> yeah but anyway we'll blow we'll blow past that nonsense anyway we'll move on >> no friend of Islam including on the Muslim teaching of iconoclasm >> Lord have mercy Well, that's like uh that's like you were saying like the uh uh reformed well not really reformed the reformed larp the reformed LAR position of iconoclasm is basically just siding with Islam Islamic theology. Um >> yeah. Yeah. And again is a minority position within Protestantism, >> right? Yeah.
>> There's a lot of Baptist grandmas out there with their pictures of Jesus.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I bet some of them kiss him sometimes, too.
>> Yeah. Do you kiss your cross? I mean, I mean, you kiss you kiss a picture of your your loved one that passed away. I mean, these are things to think about.
You salute the flag. Do I mean, what do you you know, what are you doing? Um, yeah, I think there's there's a lot of different examples that uh could show the concept of veneration. Um, but I just don't want to hear it, I guess.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I I heard that um that came up the other day and uh yeah, I did a quick follow-up saying, "Wait, what what does that have to do with the incarnation, but yeah, that sounds that doesn't sound very impressive there from John of Damascus." Even though he was pretty he was pretty good at his he was pretty good dealing with Islam there, which which again makes the point.
>> See, David, you're siding with Islam.
David, you are you're supporting jihadis. You just said he was good. Like I just I don't understand why they can't see the anti-nostic point >> right >> that St. John is making like this is very basic anti-nosticism right incarnation Christ becomes material the material is not evil right the material and spiritual are not opposed to each other this is like basic distinguishing Christianity fromnosticism >> right right >> that the fathers again there are things that they said that were commendable and there things they said that unfortunately does not seem to line up with scriptures um orthodox is a Samuel Lacram.
Not sure what that is.
>> Are you familiar with the book The Trail of Blood? Is it credible? Familiar with that?
>> Uh, I've heard of it, but I can't really make a comment on it because I I haven't read it, so I'd be it'd be unfair for me to comment on it. I have not read >> arguing for it earlier with the whole faithful remnant thing, but >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, at least at least he didn't start naming them by name. like uh who is that who is that reformed preacher that was like we have uh >> every every uh like heretic that's blood has been shed we we trace our roots through them the netorians the uh you know whatever like like the monotists >> the mist the mists are in the trail of blood and he's a big fan of Tertullian with the whole baptism thing so maybe >> it's your guy like >> Montana also in addition to claiming to be the pariclete promised by Christ uh as opposed to the Holy Spirit also traveled around with two female prophetesses who he lived with uh who would frequently have seizures and and uh >> yeah they were the pre- Pentecostal Pentecostal >> well yeah that's exactly it and it said how modern charismatics try to use that to say they're part of the ancient church I'm like really that >> yeah yeah >> that's where you're going to go okay >> I like the I like the excerpt from the the Pelican set uh where he's talking about uh the monists and he's like uh yeah they uh they you know people like witnesses to The botnist would would certainly affirm that this was something spiritual going on when they have a seizure. They just thought it was from the devil.
>> Exactly.
>> Demons are spirits also. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Something spiritual is going on.
It's not a good one.
>> I was raised in a home church. It reminded me of the church at Corinth.
And that is not a boast.
>> Yeah. The church was pretty messy. Uh you know the church of Corinth, you got a guy sleeping with his stepmother in 1 Corinthians 5.
>> What was going on there?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> People sleeping with their mother-in-laws. What was >> you got a divided church saying, "I belong to Peter. I belong to uh Apollo.
I belong to Paul." etc. And then they're drunk at the Lord's Supper. They're they're they're uh they're being judged by the Lord for misappropriating the Lord's supper. And then you got guys denying the resurrection in chapter 15.
So yeah, the church is uh from the beginning has been a mess and she still is a mess today.
>> Um but it is interesting if you say look where is this mess.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Well, you know, these guys are these guys are fans of the Bereans. I mean, where can you find that church today?
>> Yeah. Yeah. And all of St. Paul's work was a failure. All the Holy Spirit's work, the church is a failure.
Um Christ establishing his church basically failed because again, it's just as bad as the old covenant. There's no change.
You know, >> you're in a you've got a little home church that's messed up. Show us an early church that's like that. Well, Church of Church of Corinth.
>> You got the continuity there, Rubicon.
You got the continuity.
>> Yeah.
>> You got the apostolic continuity about >> the church of Corinth.
>> David Caresh could point at the church of Corinth and say we're like that.
>> Yeah.
What's the point there? That's like >> affirming core beliefs to Andrew Wilson.
Um five solas or penal substitutionary atonement. You don't need to. An expert, but no opinion makes you look unqualified with respect. Yeah. I mean, even Yes. So, uh, if you don't know what the background here is, um, Andrew, I was on another live stream and, uh, Andrew called over and he's, he's like, "Do you affirm the fly solless?" And I go, "No." And the reason there is, I mean, I I don't I don't deny them. Um, I would regard that as like default default positions. But if you wanted to show me, if you wanted to show me that I'm supposed to follow some tradition and you can make a a case from that and that would have to look like, you know, a case from the Bible that I'm supposed to follow the tradition of, you know, uh, some future, I'd be I'd be open to it. So, that's what I mean. I I don't want to I don't want to and I haven't I haven't I haven't looked into your guys' cases for these kinds of things. So, I don't know why it's bad that I don't that I say if you guys have a case, I'm open to it. Um yeah, and PSA David of course stands for penal substitution penal substitutionary atonement. Um this is interesting because you know in the middle of the 20th century a lot of these liberal Protestant scholars attacking it. These Orthopls would be in line with these liberal Protestant guys uh who were basically attacking it and calling it cosmic child abuse and so on.
But here's the irony. Augustine taught it and so did John Chrysm and Gregory of Nanzanis. Two fathers of the East that are highly regarded in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They taught penal substitutionary atonement and and this is where I find it ironic. They attack this doctrine that >> that's absurd, dude.
>> Yeah. Secular theologian literally taught against it.
>> He literally said that Christ did not pay a price to the father.
>> Like that's not just anti-PSA, that's anti like four other, >> right?
>> Yes.
>> Like this is just preposterous. Now, there is there is I don't know if I should tantalize people with this, but if I were going to be devil's advocate and try to defend PSA in St. John's, there is a passage you could kind of sideways do it from.
The Latinizers never quote it.
>> Yeah.
>> You know why? Because it doesn't use any of the keywords that they search for with their quote mining.
>> Yep. Exactly.
>> They would have to find it by actually reading St. Johnum, which they don't do.
uh which is one of the proofs that they're quote mining. Uh and so of course I'm not going to bring it up to them and it's actually del if you understand it's not teaching PSA, right?
But on the surface, right, if if a Protestant wanted to do that, they could. But so I I don't know how much more Tony Co is going to say here.
I don't know if he doesn't understand what penetal substitutionary atonement is.
>> Uh or if he doesn't understand what these fathers are saying or even if he has any particular quotes in mind or if he just saw somewhere >> like oh yeah I saw a list I saw somewhere someone said that they supported PSA you know I mean and passing it off.
>> He's cop he's copy and shing made the same exact argument word for word and used the same fathers.
>> Oh well there you go. He's just Yeah, he's just quoting >> I think he's just quoting Shuping. By the way, >> magisterial teachings.
>> Cheap plug. Uh this Thursday, the 21st, uh Father Joseph Lucas is going to come on the show to debunk uh PSA. So, we'll we'll be doing a whole stream on that Thursday. So, if you're interested in that subject, uh Father Joseph Lucas swinging by the show. We're going to talk about that. So, >> own fathers believed in and taught. And so when when when the Protestants spoke about how Christ bore the wrath of God and and that he received the wrath of God on our behalf, they say, "You guys, you're following pagan ideas. This is what the pagans believe in." No, that's not only biblical, your your own church fathers affirmed it. And that's where the Protestants got it from. The reformers got it from Chrysm and Gregory of Nanzenis. And so I think a lot of these Orthodox I think what happens, David, is >> why didn't they say that?
>> Yeah, exactly.
John Calvin, the second most quoted church father in John Calvin's writings.
Number one is St. Augustine, as you'd expect.
Number two is St. Gregory, the theologian, St. Gregory Nazanzis.
He doesn't quote St. Gregory Nazanzis in favor of his view of PSA, right?
because he's denying the he he's see again this is this is he doesn't know what PSA is okay so PSA Calvin's PSA the reformer's PSA which is what he as a supposedly reformed person would believe in right is based in Calvin's denial of the descends in Pharaoh the the the heroing of Hades Christ descend into Hades Okay, that Christ experienced the wrath of God of an eternal hell, separation from God on the cross. He did not descend into Hades. Okay, that's the context in which Calvin formulates this doctrine. You're going to tell me St. John Chrisum didn't believe in the heroing of Hades, >> right?
>> You're going to tell me he say greater the theologian don't believe in the heroing of Hades?
See, the problem is I would say the problem is that Tony Costa doesn't know his own system, but he doesn't have his own system. He has pieces >> of a Baptist system and of a Calvinist system, and he has all this smooshed together, and it doesn't actually work together, right? And so he hops about between the two, right? like between the two ecclesiologies and the two views of the covenant and the two views of esquetology and the two views of and now the the the different views of of atonement. He just hops back and forth >> and there's no internal consistency.
>> Yeah. Well, there's no Yeah. There's no internal consistency within, you know, reformed baptism anyway because I mean, you look at a church like Gavin Ortland is a reformed Baptist. He believes completely different things than Tony Costa does.
>> Yeah. He doesn't make he doesn't make any of the same claims about the Orthodox or or the Roman Catholics. He will optionally baptize infants. I mean, >> yeah. Or James White.
>> Yes.
>> Another reformed Baptist >> who's prominent, right? Because all they have in common is that they've taken reformed and Baptist and smooshed them together.
>> Right. And which parts of their thinking they get from reformed and which parts from Baptist will vary.
>> There you go. Bush concept says, "Everyone needs to spam David Wood's channel to react to this live stream."
So true. That would be interesting.
>> I don't know how effective that'll be.
He'll probably just say you're harassing him. But >> yeah, he'll say I'm mean. He'll say I'm a big meanie. He'll say I'm the devil like JP says.
I'm just I'm like a minor I'm like a minor imp. Level one imp. I drop little beads when you when you slay me in Runescape.
>> They join this movement and it's like they start thumping the chest. Yeah, we're part of the the true church. It's almost like cheerleaders. And and then I talked to Eastern Orthodox folks and they're like, "Well, I only go to church at Christmas, uh, Easter, you know, celebrating the assumption of Mary and so on." Many of them don't even keep the fast. They're supposed to fast before um Christmas and and Easter. A lot of the Orthodox I personally know, David, are cultural. They're Greek or they're Russian or Ukrainian. And many of them, they don't talk like these guys. You know, the new converts, just like in Islam, when you hear of a new convert in Islam, they become very zealous. And in Islam, you know, a lot of them commit terrorist acts because they're going back to the primary sources. And so they act out what they believe Muhammad said in the Hadith and the Quran. So I think what it is is we're seeing this wave of these new converts into Eastern Orthodoxy and they become overly zealous. And it just seems to me it's very similar to these new converts to Islam. They they're one of the most zealous of of the Muslims that I know.
>> I know a lot of reformed people. I grew up around Dutch people, right? Reformed people, Scottish people. Most of them only go to church a couple times a year.
Uh they don't really know much about Calvinism and doctrine and stuff and they just, you know, and they don't talk like these guys like Tony Costa who come and, you know, have all of this convert zeal because they discovered, you know, uh as an adult. You know, I live in in southern Louisiana where I'm surrounded by 70% Roman Catholics, most of whom only go to church on Christmas and Easter, and the rest are Baptists who mostly only go to church on on Christmas at Easter because they're they're cultural Baptists. Like, this is the world, dude.
Yes. Most Christians in Western countries where Christianity is legal unfortunately are to some degree nominal or not observant and are culturally Christian.
>> Yeah, >> that's that's all that that's every group that identifies as Christian that's true. But then secondly, right, he sits here and he shifts from on one hand, oh, I know all of these people who are ethnically orthodox, who are not observant. They're supposed to fast and they don't. they're supposed to do this and they don't. But people who come to Orthodoxy and actually take that seriously and do fast and do go to church every week and do it, that's bad somehow.
>> Yeah. He compares us to to terrorists.
>> Yeah, that's bad.
>> What?
>> Going to church every week and doing what you're supposed to do. And how does that not apply to him as a convert to Calvinism or whatever? Convert to his own reformed Baptist malange, right? for being a R. He was a Roman Catholic and he converted to this, right? I bet he goes to church every week. I bet he does the stuff his church tells him to do.
Why doesn't the same critique apply to him?
>> Yeah, you're basically you're basically uh you're basically a jihadist if you go to church every week, according to >> Wednesday night, too. Wow, you weird.
>> You're basically uh Yeah, you're basically bin Laden. You go to church on Wednesday, too.
>> I heard he sends his kids to Aana. he's going to blow himself up any day now.
>> That's fine.
>> Um that yeah, they were pretty messed up. Um so much so that Jesus could say that they are lukewarm. They're neither hot nor cold. He's going to spit them out of his mouth. Uh that is not commendable language coming from the savior. Uh and he's the one who judges the churches. So >> yes, we claim every single Orthodox parish is infallible and perfect.
>> Like what even is that?
>> I don't know.
Well, you know, to be fair, to be fair, the video that we were going to critique was Miles from Canon and Creed, and he did a two-hour video responding to a tweet I made uh like eight months ago.
And the the entire video was a tweet was responding to a tweet I made like eight months ago. And it basically said it was talking about consiliary infallibility.
And the argument that he made the entire time bringing a whole bunch of citations to get to one central point was basically to say that when the church fathers said inspired by the Holy Spirit, they mean inspired in the same way Pastor Billy Bob's sermon we could say is like inspiring >> or inspired like oh wow.
>> When they say the councils are inspired inspired like pastor Billy Bob's sermon >> that was the whole video >> re honestly. So when I say this is worse than I thought it was going to be, the only actual helpful useful thing so far in this Tony Costa did at one at that one point he did lay out what he believes the gospel is.
Right? He laid out a thing. Here's what I think the gospel is. Cited some scripture. He said that's not taught in the Orthodox church. Right?
>> That was the one piece right so far. And I have a feeling that's going to be the only piece in four hours, right? Is is that one thing. But what would what is needed again if David Wood listens to this, what you really need if you're going to talk about responding to is is more like that, more of a positive case for a Protestant perspective and then actual critiques of Orthodoxy. But pointing out that just like in the book of Revelation, individual Orthodox parishes are kind of messed up is not making any points about anything. We all acknowledge that, right? Like, >> right, >> I mean, my parish is perfect and full of saints. They have a crummy priest, >> but >> there you go. They get by with a crummy priest because they're also holy.
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
