Filioque Debate David Erhan Vs. Scholastic Answers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 жов 2023
- Here's my reupload of the debate I did on Sam Shamoun's channel
All of my Links: linktr.ee/therealMedWhite
Check out Patristic Faith: www.patristicfaith.com/our-te...
Follow on Twitter: / medwhiteacolyte
UA-cam Membership / @therealmedwhite
Donate to my Patreon: / therealmedwhite
Subscribe to my Telegram: t.me/therealmedwhite
My Discord: / discord
BTC wallet if you want to donate in BTC: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44
My Substack if you want to read my articles: therealmedwhite.substack.com/
Rokfin: www.rokfin.com/therealmedwhite
Odysee: odysee.com/@therealmedwhite
4:36 Erhan's (Ortho) opening statement
20:59 Wagner's (RC) opening statement
37:00 Erhan's (Ortho) rebuttal
45:15 Wagner's (RC) rebuttal
59:30 Erhan's 1st cross-exam
1:12:06 Wagner's 1st cross-exam
1:24:59 Erhan's 2nd cross-exam
1:37:57 Wagner's 2nd cross-exam
1:52:23 Erhan's closing statement
1:56:56 Wagner's closing statement
2:01:20 Q&A
Thank you
@@mitch0990 thank you.
My guy totally owned the debate. Their guy got absolutely crushed.
Absolute [my side] victory.
It's funny looking between here and SA's comments it's like an alternate dimensions
@@778FraxKbased. I agree that both of them did great
RCs be like: "St Cyril of Alexandria was a die hard filioquist, he just didn't feel like writing a 13th anathema against Nestorius in order to rebuke the Antiochians for denying the Filioque."
Great debate though, kudos to both of you.
@@778FraxK Definitely, I don’t think anyone who isn’t already convinced of the filioque will take his answer seriously.
Good job brother David. Your points were correct. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Amen.
and the Son.
Arians love to take minimize the status of the Son. Guess Orthodox are Arians?
@@realtourdreams9655 Go bless some gay couples bro, they are waiting.
@@LadLamer2421 Ofc we will bless them to reject the sin and come to Christ.
@@LadLamer2421 Uncharitable and dishonest
David, why didn’t you provide the full quote of St. John of Damascus? It would have supported your position for he says “And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son”
Do you know how he would have responded to that?
Great debate! Thanks to these three MEN for putting it on!!! Cheers!
Well done. This is one of the best debates on the differences between East dissenters and Western Church. Thank you for sharing.
Well done David you did fantastic especially on the second cross-exam where you show the issues when the theory is applied
Well done dear brother David Erhan.
Phrase "through the Son" was never an issue in Orthodoxy as it does not convey causation of the Spirit by the Son. It is merely a mode of operation of the Spirit, w/o implying His origination. Perhaps such proxy mode of operation has confused Western theologians in thinking that Son causes Spirit w/o seeing the real Originator (Father) behind the Proxy (Son).
The discussion can get very confusing. Great job from both men but David seems to have handily showed the correct dogmas and teachings of the fathers of the church.
Very good debate and of a high level
I particularly liked the ability of David to understand and reply in a holistic way
Romes filioque is a " local interpolation", admitting it was only a local see without having universal jurisdiction
tHAt's NoT the ArGUMenT! StaY focUsED!
@@panokostouros7609 hahahaha
"Attributive/Constitutive" power. Classic RC addon charcters that create more and more and more distinctions then never really actually explain anything.
They clearly dont believe in divine simplicity because they do everything to make it as unsimple as possible.
@@Tokmurok excellent point
I thought the same thing. His explanations were very confusing. Just pure sophistry.
@Tokmurok Their view of simplicity renders every category equivalent to the Divine Essence so why not just pull new distinctions from no where? It's all the "same" regardless.
Without definitional Simplicity, they can't play this chameleon Pharisaic casuistry and would have to approach these Patristic ideas with the humility they deserve
Dim
when I see a bright mind and warm heart like the legend Sam Shamoun still not clearly taking side with one of the two apostolic churches makes me feel less guilty of being so hesitant as well
@@denknichtschau2778 and he is with Oriental aswell
It seems to me that wagner spent the majority of the debate quote mining and using ad hominems against EO church fathers
He didn’t, he provided arguments with his case and didn’t provide ad hominems.
@darklord7069 At the end of the day the discussion was pointless. The ecumenical councils have established what believers are to follow. The Catholics have chosen innovate and change dogmas which is proof and point of why the RCC has imploded. The Ethos was never there to begin with, only secular scolasticism that was shown by Wagner.
@@CJohn33 I’m orthodox and I agree. But we shouldn’t just say things like this about the debate. In fact, Wagner debated a lot better than the Monophysites that David encountered.
Did you even watch the debate? And if you’re going to comment, just saying “quote mining” and “ad hominem” doesn’t mean anything. Both sides made good good intelligent arguments from original sources. So instead of committing the “ad hominem” fallacy yourself, try actually refuting one of the arguments. THEN you’ll show yourself to be smart rather than looking like you’re trying to appear smart.
Catholics quoting the Fathers= QUOTE MINING
Catholics not using the Fathers= NOT PATRISTIC
EO quoting the Fathers= THIS IS THE ANCIENT FAITH!
Inconsistencies, dude, lol. If the Latin Fatbers taught the Filioque (and they did), then you guys were in communion with heretics for 1,000 years... I think there's another option here.
1:49:13 Latin casuistry at its finest. Didn't Christ say "Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no', 'no'?"
Professions of believe (even regarding the Trinitarian relations?) don't have to match up with dogmas?
Not really what he was saying. It was that the local creeds can be of different professions. Not that they are allowed to contradict the dogma of the church. Neither adding or subtracting “filioque” contradict the dogma.
In other words, "Say one thing, do another". Yes, the Trinitarian relations are of the utmost importance as these relations condition and form the framework of everything else in Creation.
The Creeds, the faith and embodiments of the Faith ought to harmonize in every possible way. Occasional misalignments in Credal confessions among the faithful eventually realign in short order, so something as foundational as the Creed shouldn't be so widely disparate millenia after the fact.... unless of course you're a heretic of your own mind and not of Christ's.
Christ may show compassion and patience in our errors for a time, but He doesn't play the Papal bureaucratic games. Otherwise, He would've negotiated with Pilate and argued His way out of the Jews' clutches to avoid crucifixion.
Saint Mark of Ephesus was so bold and courageous!
No he wasn't
So this is David’s channel so of course he is going to be the winner…of the comments section.
Does that matter? What matters is what he says in the debate, the comment section are just randomers
@@IN-pr3lw People are so worried about the comments rather than the debate itself, he can say the same thing about Christian's channel, but hey his comment is only supporting David
One point to make is that we humans trying define God will always fall short.both men mean well and I'm sure they follow the natural law. We all havE heresies to different degrees. Thanks for the debate.
John 15:26 tells us the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. End of discussion surely?
Really? Is that how u read the Bible? Thank God we are not u
You sound like a Muslim, only the Father is the ture God, how ridiculous
Honestly I think that quote from Jesus himself simply solves all of these debates extremely simply. It's so clear and obvious. The spirit proceeds from the father. Done.
@@amaledward2147 well, you're not on the side of history. For nearly 2,000 years the Orthodox Church has read the Bible verse in this way. Rome changed the wording of the Nicene Creed nearly 1,000 years after the death of Christ - without warrant. If you are a Roman Catholic then you need to read your early Church history as well as Scripture. If you are Protestant, then you get this doctrine from Rome (whether you realise this or not)
As a former traditional catholic both eastern and Latin. Now rocor the eastern catholics agree with the East. What settled the matter for me is Holy Scripture in st John. Also earlier popes plastered the creed as the East believes. Romans development of doctrine is what has lead to their super council vatican 2 where all these innovations have occurred I have deep respect for traditional catholics. And have chosen to stick with the oldest sect I can find.
Can anyone please elaborate on what they mean when they say that the Father is the cause of the Son
Well, the Father shares the Godhead with Son and Spirit, Father is cause for Son and Spirit
The Father begets the son meaning causes the hypostasis of the son.
@@graff6909 You didn't answer anything at all
The father begets the Son but not in the sense that the Son came AFTER the Father because the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. For example, the sun is a source of light, but you can't have the sun without light being there, so although the sun is the source, the light was always with the sun, just as the Son has always been with the Father. So the Son and the Holy Spirit have a source (the Father) but not in the sense of being subsequent in time.
Jays back
Yeah I wondered why his channel went away for a bit lol
I think Wagner really lost the point at 1:33:00… how can he not see the importance of distinguishing “and” with ”or” when referring to the Father as cause… “or” implies interchangeability whereas “and” is adding an additional attribute. And he looks flustered when confronted with that.
John Collorafi disagrees with Wagner on Basils Contra Eunomium
Catholic academia at large does as well
What I don't understand why an Orthodox debates a Catholic problem. The creed is clear and they have to adjust to it. The Greek Catholic have the creed similar to the Orthodox. The Catholic are the one who are undecided and have multiple versions
7th ecumenical council wtates that the Spirit proceeds from the Father Through the Son
Can you share the quote?
No issues with through the Son…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but orthodox believe that the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. So who is the Spirit of the Son, also known as the Spirit of life?
There is no such thing as "spirit of the son". Holy Three are: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
@@johnnyd2383
*Galatians 4:6*
_And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying "Abba! Father!" So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir._
The Spirit of his Son is the Holy Spirit. Like you said and I agree with you, there is only the most Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
@@Jordan-1999 I got your point now... Yes, Holy Spirit is called in many different ways in the Scriptures..
@@johnnyd2383
Right! So if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of his Son, then the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. This affirms the divinity of Jesus, it does not take away from his divinity.
@@Jordan-1999 That is philosophy... using the same logic and by reading (2 Cor 3, 17) you will conclude that Son also proceeds from the Holy Spirit.
☦️🇹🇷👑🔥
God bless you, bro. Turks can be warriors of Christ. 💙☦💯
That has been a bad debate.
Debate is over when Ecumenical counsil says something 😂😊
Ecumenical council clearly said what it said, so why even debate?
Holy Spirit proceeds from the father.
And of story!
@@778FraxKI thought that was one way to have the truth win out.
And if that's the case then it did win out long time ago
@@778FraxK We don't obey because they said so.
We obey because we know what is apostolic teaching 😊
We obeyed the councils because they were correct 😊
There have been many councils we (people rejected).
Orthodox church is a unity of everyone not only bishops.
Bishops are vital but so are people for us.
That's why we rejected Florence 😊
That's why we say it wasn't Ecumenical.
Council which is not acceptable for people is not Ecumenical 😊
We are The Church as well not only bishops
@@_ftphikari Which Ecumenical council said that?😊
@@_ftphikari Unfortunately there is No button on UA-cam to laugh at your comment 😂😂😂😂
There have never been an Ecumenical council which states that any see or bishop is infallible 😂😂😂
By the way I don't care what Roman see says about themselves 😂😂😂
@@_ftphikariInteresting.....Why are there Catholics saying the antichrist will come out of the papacy
David isn't "they were actually talking about energetic procession / the filioque meant something else" special pleading? I didn't see you prove that like christian did showing the different contexts and uses of words.
I mean that's not special pleading, they really were talking about the energies. That's been the EO argument for centuries, and Gregory Palamas, in both of his apdotic treatises on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, gives a plethora of citations (including of western fathers) where the condition of the Spirit’s procession from the Son is that it is to us, i.e., for a temporal purpose and not as a matter of eternal hypostatic relations.
@@letruweldonothsa2622 but he didn't address that in the debate, Christian made a whole case for why those fathers weren't discussing energies and it was ignored
Where is Jay Dyer's channel
privated to prevent mass flags
Yea I just noticed that his channel is gone. Did he get banned? Why would he get massed flagged?
@@glennargento4849Twitter says "he's avoiding an attempted takedown." No other context. He seems calm.
@@glennargento4849 because papists and other such salty losers do mass reporting campaigns when their arguments get torn apart in debates.
If the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally in part from the Father, and in unique part from the Son then the Holy Spirit is a composite being consisting of a part that proceeds from the Father and a part that proceeds uniquely from the Son. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from an interaction of the Father and the Son then the Holy Spirit is a created being contingent on the interaction, not on the person or persons of the Godhead. The Catholic Catechism actually does not hold to either of these positions. The Catholic Catechism says that the Orthodox view is not heretical but emphasizes that the Father is the sole "first origin" of the Holy Spirit, and that all of the Spirit that proceeds from the Son originated with the Father. IF that's the case, dividing the church by adding the filioque was probably a reprehensible political tool used by the Carolingians to force a schism so that their King could claim emperorship.
At the time, denying that everything “Father has, the Son also has” was, and still is - heresy. Keeping the earlier Creed itself is fine as it doesn’t say anything about the Son, but when one actively denies the Son’s spirative power given Him by the father, we cross the boundary very close to Nestorian. Heresy is a big deal and so the Pope finally installed it to combat the Eastern heresy, minimizing the role of the Son.
@@realtourdreams9655 Well that's not really the Catholic position though. Jesus was given everything the Father had at the fullness of time and he sent the Holy Spirit in time, but the Catholic position is that the filioque represents an eternal relationship. Second, the Catholic Catechism says that the Orthodox version of the Creed is not heretical, but the "same mystery" expressed with different emphasis.
@@realtourdreams9655This is ironic considering the Catholic Church has the doctrine of the sacred heart which is quite literally Nestorianism.
Is David a Turk?
Yes
@@JadBelkadi Aliluia😭
I wish to see Anatolian Türks and Central Asian Türks Orthodox Christian. God-willing, they have brave hearts.
That Christian Wagner guy made the best and most important points, but he was way too kind on certain points that were so easy to confirm the truth. He won the debate but was incredibly kind on points.
David W
my guy won your guy lost NOW COOOOPE
The Turk lost. Total Filioquist Victory.
Chad turk vs cringe American
David won. Obviously
You are just bias
@@Jesusisgod-ki5mlhow did he not
@@thefakebriskeh he did not what?
This exchange in this subcomment section made me laugh out loud
@@leopistis3560my guys better than your guy because he’s on my side so prove me wrong
I was long denying the filioque because it was never part of the Nicene Creed but the following argument briefly mentioned seems very convincing:
1. Jesus is the only-begotten Son, so logically there can only be one Son.
2. However, the Spirit is a Person of the Trinity as well and is distinguished from the Son.
3. Then the question is: How is it hypostatically distinguished if there can only be one Son.
-> Answer: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
He is sent to us, after Jesus went up to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.
So the Holy Spirit is the Father's Grandson/Son?
@@DemetriosoftheDonthat's exactly what St Athanasius argued against in the second letter to serapion when they said he was making the spirit a grandson by saying he comes from the son but Athanasius qualifies it in a manner that God is the one whom the spirit proceeds from to be God while he is through the son since the since is begotten in eternity to make the spirit distinct and related to the son
1:15:12 3 senses of existence.
2:00:31 bookmark
I can't comprehend the level of tradcope in the comment section, insisting that Wagner won, when the guy LITERALLY USED A FORGERY for his argument. I mean, he *is* following the tradition of his false religion in using forgeries, lol.
Yeah, and even jay dyer showed him that even the American Catholic university acknowledges the quotes being forgeries and he only said “I went to seminary, they taught me textual criticism”
@@darklord7069Exactly!
Their Popes have been using forgeries for centuries. As long as they perform well, make non-contradictory arguments with rhetorical flourish, they have "won". The actual truth and truthfulness of their arguments mean nothing
This comes from a guy that denies that uniates venerate St. Gregory Palamas. He worships his own brand of invented papal protestantism where the only thing to ever exist is thomism. Wagner's whole schtick is just bad faith argumentation when things don't fit the ahistorical narrative he's bound himself to.
@NavelOrangeGazer that shocked me too... I was Eastern Catholic before becoming Orthodox and my old church definitely venerated St. Gregory Palamas.
This guy to me seemed like a catholic protestant in the sense of picking and choosing what fit his arguments.
Why is this even being debated, by their fruits you shall know them, the pope said its ok to bless SS unions.
Its not the unions regards papalists
False, he did not say that.
@@WilliamNoelle he definately opened the door to it
@@WilliamNoelle He wrote the foreword to a pro-lgbt Bible commentary.
@@stojs4881 incorrect. He said blessing la can be granted to those seeking to live holy lives:
"For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of benediction, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage," he wrote. "Because when a benediction is requested, it is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a father who can help us to live better."
A response to David Erhan:
Argument: 5:25 David says the Letter to Marinus says the Father alone is the one cause or aitia, whereas The Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence says the Father and the Son are one cause aitia of the Holy Spirit. Therefore there is a contradiction between the two.
Response: This is a fallacy of equivocation. Aitia can either refer to primordial cause or it can refer to principle of any sort. The Council of Florence says the Son is principle but not primordial cause, whereas the Letter to Marinus says the Father alone is primordial cause. So the way aitia is used in both differs, so there is no formal contradiction.
Furthermore St. Maximus in Quaestiones Ad Thalassium 63 says: “By nature (phusei) the Holy Spirit according to the essence (kat’ousian) takes substantially (ousiodos) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten." Here we have the Holy Spirit substantially taking His origin (not energetically) from the Father through the Son, something explicitly condemned at the Council of Blachernae, Tomus Against Bekkos, Canon 4 which says, "It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him. For this would mean that the Spirit has the Son as cause and source (exactly as it has the Father), not to say that it has its cause and source more so from the Son than from the Father; for it is said that that from which existence is derived likewise is believed to enrich the source and to be the cause of being. To those who believe and say such things, we pronounce the above resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God."
Argument: 5:53 David says Ekporeumenon means hypostatic procession whereas Proienai means temporal or energetic procession.
Response: False. Proienai can also refer to hypostatic procession, as St. Cyril in Letter 55 equates Prokeitai and ekporeuetai.
“[The Holy Spirit] is consubstantial with them and he is *poured forth (πρόκειται), that is, he proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται)* as from the fountain of God the Father” - St. Cyril Letter 55
Argument: 8:44 Adding to the Filioque was an illegitimate move
Response: At 1:38:24 Wagner clearly shows that the Pope and Council both affirm that there are licit additions to the Creed.
Argument: 11:47 St. Gregory the Theologian in Oration 34 says "all that the Father has belongs to the Son, except Causality (aitias)"
Response: In oration 34, when St. Gregory says “Causality” the term used is aitias, which refers to principal causality, or unbegotten cause, which is unique to the Father alone. He is not rejecting the Son’s role as cause of the Spirit. In fact, he says, “All that the Father has the Son has also, except the being Unbegotten” - Oration 41 chapter 9. If we affirm this, then the argument follows. The Father communicates all to the Son, save for Paternity. The Father spirates, therefore the Son spirates.
Argument: 12:38 It's either hypostatic or its essential. Meaning either the spiration of the Spirit is of the Father alone or common to all 3 Persons.
Response: It's either absolute or relative. St Augustine in De Trinitate 5.5.6 says "These appellations do not belong to the order of substance but to that of relation." The act of spiration is a notional act, common to the Father and the Son, and this is totally fine since the Persons are constituted by relations, and there is no relative opposition between active spiration and paternity or active spiration and passive generation. Something relative can either be proper to a single Person or common to two Persons, due to the doctrine of relations of opposition (which Latin and Greek Fathers unanimously agree on.)
Argument 14:09 Energetic Procession bro
Response: Energetic procession based on the essence energies real distinction leads to composition. Energetic procession without the essence energies real distinction leads to the Filioque.
Support: If the energies are Divine they possess the Divine Essence, and if they are really distinct from the Divine Essence, they must possess some non-essential feature to differentiate them from the essence. Therefore the "energies" would be a composition of essence + something non-essential. Which means you have a composite god.
If the energies are not really distinct from the Divine Essence, then the Holy Spirit receiving the energies from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son simply means He receives the Divine Essence and Being from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son (which is condemned by the Council of Blachernae Tomus Against Bekkos, 4 & 5)
More can be said, but Wagner won.
so God is composed? so the Father , Son and Holy Spirit is a composition in Catholicism? if there is no real distinctions then the essence of God = actions of God in your theology?
> __The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit:__ Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. **For the Father alone is cause.**
- St. John of Damascus
> ...everything the Father has, the Son has also, __except causality__
~ St. Gregory the Theologian
> ...**the Holy Spirit does not receive existence from or through the Son**, but proceeds from the Father and is called the proprium of the Son because of his consubstantiality.
~ St. Cyril of Alexandria
> But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even **the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father**, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.”
~ Jesus Christ (John 15;26-27)
in other words you are dummy
@@Giorgi755 I didn’t say real distinction entails composition, I said an energy that is really distinct from the Divine Essence
And possesses the essence would be composed (which I logically demonstrated.) Person and nature is not really distinct they are only virtually distinct, so our model doesn’t lead to composition, but your EED necessarily does.
If you actually understand the argument I present, you will see that you will either have to reject the Essence Energy real distinction, or you will be lead to a composite “god”
@@dwong9289 you said - "I didn’t say real distinction entails composition, I said an energy that is really distinct from the Divine Essence" hhhhhhhhhhhh you contradict yourself lol what a confusion....
are acts of God created or uncreated?
@@dwong9289 "Person and nature is not really distinct only virtually distinct." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you or not clued up sufficiently, but are you saying that outside of our minds, which on the Thomistic account are built so to speak for composite being, there is no real distinction between the Persons? Isn't that just a monad?
Good job Wagnor! You did great.
David won. Papism destroyed
@@SimonSlPl explain.
@@CurtosiusMaximus828 Did you watch the video?
@@SimonSlPl yes. Explain.
@@CurtosiusMaximus828 if you watched the video, then you would know that david won.
As an orthodox ofcourse i think David won here but i have to admit that Wagner did great and i pray he finds the truth one day