Jay Dyer Teaches Ruslan How Arguments Work

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]I've heard you make great arguments.

[00:00:01]I've heard Catholics make I've heard voice of reason make good arguments.

[00:00:04]I've heard a lot around >> that's a fallacy. It's called a psychological report. That's a fallacy.

[00:00:07]>> Why is it a fallacy? Because I've heard good arguments and I say, "Hey, you guys all got great arguments."

[00:00:11]>> Your psych It's called psychological reports.

[00:00:13]>> Fel trying to be a douchebag. It's a >> no it I'm genuinely asking.

[00:00:17]>> So like when I debate Matt Delhoney and he says, "I've heard all your arguments.

[00:00:21]I don't find them convincing. It's called psychological reporting which is not [music] relevant to the debate. The fact that you don't find it convincing has nothing to do with the the topic at hand.

[00:00:31]>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm I'm asking like how how does then one know if those are what what sources I guess are infallible versus not infallible?

[00:00:40]>> There is not an a Protestant or a Roman Catholic list of the things. And I'm arguing that no one has that. We're all in the same boat. Okay. that I would have to go to an Orthodox church, live it, and be embied in it to have a sense of what the infallible versus the non-infallible tradition. There's no other there's not like >> just like if you ask a Roman Catholic, for example, like what is the infallible list of the infallible dogmas? There isn't one, >> right?

[00:01:09]>> So, if you ask Orthodox person, what is the infallible list of orthodox dogmas?

[00:01:13]There's not one.

[00:01:14]>> But fair enough. So, no one has that.

[00:01:16]>> No, no, I know. And thus I don't make that really a key line of argumentation.

[00:01:21]>> Yeah. Okay. I mean I think I think that the tricky part with that then is it does seem that that can also be a bit subjective to experience. Right.

[00:01:28]>> It's but it's a problem. No, but it's not it's and I would agree like we have there's no way to avoid some degree of that >> some degree of being subjective to our experience.

[00:01:37]>> But well something can be partly subjective and also objective. It's not doesn't have to be either or.

[00:01:42]>> Let me bounce this off of you. How do you feel about the Wesleyan quadrillateral?

[00:01:45]>> The what? The Wesleyan quadrilateral.

[00:01:47]>> I'm not familiar.

[00:01:48]>> Okay. So, the Wesleyan quadrillateral is um how does one come to conclusions of what is true, right? What is reasonable?

[00:01:55]Um the Wesleyan quadrilateral um is the idea that we're filtering and I'm not a Wesleyan for the record, but I like this. I think like when it comes to pesmology, this just makes the most amount of sense to me. um scripture, church tradition, experience, um and reasoning.

[00:02:17]So, we use all four. Sure. Scripture being the only infallible one, right?

[00:02:21]Because in my circles, charismatics, God told me this, God gave me a word, God gave me a vision. Well, it's like, well, no, God's not going to give you something that's going to contradict scripture. So, your experience has to submit to scripture.

[00:02:32]>> Scripture is only infallible authority.

[00:02:34]But we also believe that there's a lot of amazing authorities in church history. There's amazing authorities within our local churches. My pastor has authority. He's just not an infallible authority. And and then also reasoning and using your mind and and logic and all the all the things that I think God also created. Um from your perspective like what do what do you think of that the western quadrilateral as a uh system of how I personally do my best to come to truth? Right. This is my this is how my epistemology works. Like I I think of those four categories. Well, I would argue that scripture itself, especially in Paul's epistles or even when when Peter's talking, >> Paul says uh that he taught for three days and three nights or excuse me, three years three three years day and night in Ephesus and he tells Timothy in the epistles to Timothy that everything that you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses passed that on to men after you. He only wrote Timothy two letters that we know of at Ephesus, but he taught there orally.

[00:03:26]>> So, there's a three-year Pauline catechizus tradition that Timothy hears.

[00:03:32]Timothy is instructed to lay hands on men after him who are of good testimony because the giving of the Holy Spirit is transferred in the laying on of hands.

[00:03:41]Paul says that's apostolic succession.

[00:03:42]And to my knowledge, there's no Protestant group or denomination at all that believes that the Holy Spirit is transferred in the laying on of hands.

[00:03:49]So for us, that's a very important apostolic succession.

[00:03:51]>> Hold on.

[00:03:52]>> Say that say that one more time.

[00:03:53]>> There are no Protestant churches that teach that there's a sacrament of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. That's a historical succession.

[00:04:02]>> Okay.

[00:04:02]>> Okay.

[00:04:03]>> I mean, we believe on laying on of the hands. And I want to say >> Paul is laying down a historical >> reality. Uhhuh.

[00:04:11]>> Telling Timothy in Ephesus, you are the appointed authority, not all these other people. I lay hands on you.

[00:04:18]>> You lay hands on good men. Be careful who you choose because the Holy Spirit is passed on in that laying on of hands.

[00:04:25]So when you go to Ephesus, there are still today Orthodox churches that have that same descent >> all the way back to Timothy.

[00:04:32]>> To Timothy, correct? That's what we're we think it's a historical reality.

[00:04:35]>> Not a thing that died.

[00:04:37]>> Jesus says that in in the book of John, he's talking about the promise of the Holy Spirit. He says, "I will be with you until the end of the age. I will not leave you. I will the spirit will lead you and guide you in all truth." So for us, the idea that the collective church in history could lose that, lose the gospel, lose any of that on a collective sense. You can have individual churches or nations fall away.

[00:04:56]>> Revelation 2 and 3 warns of that. I will take your lampstand. Sure. But the totality of the church could never fall away. The gates of fell can't prevail.

[00:05:03]>> So for us, it would not be possible for that succession to die or to fail. And that's why whether it's the pre-nine fathers or all the fathers in those councils, they're teaching the same doctrine, same theology. Each council refers back to the previous councils.

[00:05:18]>> Yeah, I get that. But but is it in your view that the apostolic succession isn't a part of the other churches that claim to be the one and true church?

[00:05:26]>> Well, you can stop.

[00:05:28]>> What do you mean?

[00:05:29]>> Catholics have apostolic succession.

[00:05:31]>> No, if you leave the church, you don't have a succession. In the orthodox view, it's not a mechanical thing that is that exists apart from having the faith. So for example in Athanasius he writes festival letters and he says everyone who celebrates the feast talking about uh Pusca outside the church he says it's not a feast. They don't have it.

[00:05:50]>> I I guess I guess all I'm saying what I was getting at is and this is you guys will will you guys sort this out much better than I can is like from their vantage point they don't feel like they left the church. The other seven church >> doesn't have anything to do with whether they did or didn't like the fact that they feel that way that's a fallacy right. So I could So that'd be like saying that well a lot of people don't believe in the arguments for God's existence or convincing. So >> that's that's not what I mean. I mean I'm saying I'm I'm sure if we sat down with the leading Catholic apologists, the leading oriental orth apologists, they would have their own systematic theology and they would make their own arguments for it and they those two would probably >> it has nothing to do with which position is correct or not. It >> it doesn't but but it does seem like there's there seems to be a degree of sub subjectivity to concluding which is the one true church. The fact that a person makes an argument that comes from them does not mean that it's purely subjective. That's that's an epistemic mistake. So every one of us makes an argument and they come from a subjective person, that doesn't mean that subjectivism is the case.

[00:06:48]>> Right? I I I didn't make that claim. I'm saying that if you have great arguments and they have great arguments and they're using the rules of logic and they're using history and they could point to their sources, they can make the same arguments, right? Which I don't I'm not trying to >> I just don't buy that. I mean, I understand why you wouldn't buy that cuz you, you know, you got your >> but I mean, you would have the same type of position that you have a take >> and you don't agree with my take and so you have sources and so that would just be relativizing all argumentation and all positions.

[00:07:15]>> No, I so so again Jay in my take I think there's a capital C bigger church which you would disagree with and I think in that capital C all believers everywhere from all denominations are part of that capital. No, I'm just pointing out that the argument that you're making violates the very thing that you just said would relativize the positions.

[00:07:34]>> The argument that I'm making right now, >> your argument is no different than anyone else's argument. You're citing.

[00:07:38]You're saying, "I have this position.

[00:07:40]They have that position. You have your position."

[00:07:42]>> Yeah, >> of course. But that has nothing to do with which one's true or false.

[00:07:45]>> Okay.

[00:07:45]>> So, what you were arguing doesn't pertain to whether or not the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is correct.

[00:07:53]>> You're just saying that, well, they have arguments.

[00:07:54]>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm saying I've heard compelling arguments from all sides. That's all I'm saying. And I'm saying I've heard you make great arguments. I've heard Catholics make I've heard Voice of Reason make good arguments. I've heard a lot of >> That's a fallacy. It's called a psychological report. That's a fallacy.

[00:08:08]>> Why is it a fallacy? Because I've heard great arguments. And I say, "Hey, you guys all got great arguments."

[00:08:12]>> Your psych It's called psychological report. It's a fallacy. Explain. I'm not >> trying to be a douchebag. It's a no. I'm genuinely asking.

[00:08:19]>> So like when I debate Matt Dillah Honey and he says, "I've heard all your arguments. I don't find them convincing." Uh-huh.

[00:08:25]>> It's called psychological reporting, which is not relevant to the debate. The fact that you don't find it convincing has nothing to do with the the topic at hand.

[00:08:35]>> Yeah. I don't I don't think I said I don't find it convincing. I think you're very convincing, Jay. I'm saying [clears throat] I'm saying I've heard great arguments from from all these streams. Not all.

[00:08:43]>> That's equivalent to saying that they think their arguments are convincing.

[00:08:47]You think this is convincing. I think my position it's it's the same principle.

[00:08:51]It's a psychological report and it's just it's a fallacy. I'm not trying to be a douche. It just is a fallacy.

[00:08:57]>> What what I'm saying is I'm hearing truth claims made >> by all of these different churches that are all making very similar claims to you.

[00:09:05]>> But that's not an argument. It's a fallacy.

[00:09:08]>> Okay? So, I'm I'm not even trying to argue with you. I'm just giving you my paradigm. I'm saying for my paradigm, Jay, I'm looking around. I'm saying, man, there's a lot of these churches that are all claiming the same thing you're claiming. And it seems like I have the average person that's trying to find a church that's apostolic and is the one true church has a a mountain of evidence to go through and a lot of thinking to do. And when I look at that, I go, man, it sure seems like repent and believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins is a more simple and pathway to salvation.

[00:09:40]>> Appeal to simplicity. So like when I debate the Muslims, they'll say, "You have all this trinitarian theology. It's complex. Uh Islam is very simple. It just has the you [laughter] know they'll say you just you just just believe in the four principles there. Daniel Hiko made that argument. He said that Islam is true because it's simple. Okay. Well, that's another fallacy.

[00:09:57]>> Okay. So, because uh certain Christian groups hold to a simple simple view of the gospel that then invalidates said position.

[00:10:08]>> It's just >> Yeah. I'm not saying it makes it correct.

[00:10:10]>> It's an oversimplification. So, it would be the fallacy of oversimplification or just appeal to simplicity.

[00:10:15]>> Sure. Yeah. an appeal to simplicity.

[00:10:18]That's fair. I think I think God is simple. I think salvation is simple. I think people who come to Jesus and experience a transformed heart, new hearts, new desires. I would argue an onlogical change on the on the identity basis. I think that's fairly simple.

[00:10:32]>> I mean, I could I would also argue it's kind of an equivocation fallacy. So, because God is simple as a being, that has nothing to do with whether the message of the gospel is equated to what you're saying is simplicity.

[00:10:43]>> So, it's another nonsequittor. So repent and believe. It doesn't articulate.

[00:10:48]>> I mean, is that the only passage or does he also say in Acts 2, repent and believe and be baptized for the remission of sins?

[00:10:53]>> I think you should be 38. I think you should be baptized.

[00:10:55]>> No, but baptism for the remission of sins and then they water baptize a few thousand people.

[00:10:59]>> Uhhuh.

[00:10:59]>> So the baptism that's water baptism is the remission of the sins.

[00:11:03]>> Sure. I believe in baptism. I think people should >> No. Baptismal regeneration.

[00:11:06]>> You hold to baptismal regeneration.

[00:11:08]>> Acts 238 says >> so. But but here's the thing, Jay. You hold to baptismal regeneration. Someone is not born again. Am I tracking correctly? Baptis unless they're baptized. Yes.

[00:11:17]>> Uh well, again, a catechum who dies on the way to the baptism.

[00:11:21]>> So, there's a nuance to it. That's what I'm getting at.

[00:11:23]>> But no, you're not born again until you're baptized. Correct.

[00:11:25]>> But you could still go to heaven >> in the case of people who are not intentionally warning it. That's just like the thief on the cross. Right. I think God is merciful and he makes ways.

[00:11:37]He's not >> God is merciful.

[00:11:39]>> A miser. He's not there to like try to cast people out. He wants and loves man.

[00:11:44]You understand the liturgy. He is the lover of mankind. Amen. But that doesn't >> and so he's still creating pathways for people that don't do all the right things.

[00:11:49]>> Here's the problem though. This is this is called taking the exception to be the rule. And this is what Protestants often do where they take these exceptions and then that becomes the theological paradigm that gets rid of the rule. The rule is for example in Acts 238:39 Peter says Peter doesn't say repent and solid you'll be justified by faith. says repent and be baptized [clears throat] >> for the remission of sins and then they waterbaptize people. So we know that it's not a Calvinist.

[00:12:18]>> I'm not saying you're Calvinist. I'm using example of invisible church.

[00:12:22]>> He doesn't say anything about being united to the invis. He just says >> he doesn't have to say water baptism.

[00:12:26]>> Yeah. I'm saying I'm not I understand your your point about um exceptions to the rule fallacy. I get that. That's a fair critique. What I'm saying is there seems to always be the exception to the rule. And I agree with the rule. I think you should be baptized. I think you should be in a local church. I think you should wage war in your sin and become more.

[00:12:44]>> I'm just specifically saying the dominant New Testament references to baptism from our paradigm. We would argue are baptismal regeneration. Like Titus 3, the the w the the washing of labor regeneration.

[00:12:57]>> And if that doesn't happen, someone can be not born again but still go to heaven. But that doesn't negate baptism regeneration is the point because the exception fine is not the rule. The most Protestant teaching is not baptism regeneration unless you're Luther.

[00:13:10]>> There's there's tons of Protestants that hold the baptism regeneration. I just had um the guy from Theos University on that held baptism.

[00:13:17]>> It's not the classical normative Protestant position except for many Lutherans believe it. Some Anglicans believe it, but it's not typical evangelical Protestant teaching.

[00:13:26]>> That's that's fair. All I'm getting at is that there are Protestants that hold to it and there's still exceptions to the rule there. You guys create nuances.

[00:13:34]Catholics create nuances. Everyone has exceptions to the rule of what a Christian ought to do versus the reality of when it doesn't happen.

[00:13:40]>> But this is this is one doctrine, right?

[00:13:43]>> Baptism. Sure.

[00:13:44]>> Right. We've got the Eucharist. We've got should children partake of the Eucharist.

[00:13:48]>> We've got a host of things that were already settled. And the main problem I would say about Protestantism in this regard is that each generation has to reinvent the wheel and start it all over when we have already settled these issues.

[00:14:02]>> And in in fact in the case of the ecclesial reality, the church has already declared and defined the extent of the body of Christ.

[00:14:11]>> Christ is not divided. Paul says he doesn't exist amongst thousands of different competing claiming sects. And so if there's no boundaries and guidelines as to what the visible church is, and I would argue formerly being a Protestant believing in the invisible church doctrine, >> it contradicts Christologology that Christ >> because his body is divided and he can't be divided.

[00:14:31]>> Okay, I got you. Um, >> tell me about comedy in your in [laughter] your