Sent me a lengthy quote from a modern Eastern Orthodox writer, basically dismissing Cyril Lucaris, this wasn't in accordance with tradition, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, we went through his Confession, and it's a Reformed Confession, and the beauty of it was it affirms biblical authority, says that tradition should be examined on the basis of a higher authority, and as we saw in the Confession of Oscythias, which is the 1672 Council of Jerusalem's response to Cyril Lucaris, condemnation of his perspective, that provided us with some clarity, because as I pointed out up here, yeah, so they talked about Calvin, and yeah, right here in the middle of the paragraph, moreover, when any man speaks for himself, he is liable to err and to deceive, and be deceived, but the Catholic Church, remember the Catholic Church here is the Eastern Orthodox Church, as never having spoken or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God, who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich, it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived, but like the divine scriptures, is infallible and has perpetual authority, so the clarity of that statement was forced on the Council of Jerusalem, because of what Cyril Lucaris had said, and that is a clear statement, not only denying scriptural sufficiency, but in essence, requiring a belief that church tradition be viewed as theonistos, as God breathed, and once you go there, you have a church that is utterly unreformable, you can't reform a church, that is itself incapable of erring, and so you end up with a dogma, because Empress Irene says you have it, well, okay, now we've got to interpret all of scripture, and all of history in light of that dogma, and that's why you've got people like today, trying to find in church history, things that just simply didn't exist, I mean, honestly, I think I played, if not, I have it queued up someplace, Dr. Stephen DeYoung, in a dialogue with Gavin Ortland, basically arguing that the reason there's no positive evidence, really, there's nobody that comes straight out and says, no, we should be venerating icons, is because everybody was doing it, everybody was doing it, so it was just a given, that's why there's no positive statement, that's a non -falsifiable claim, it's indefensible, you can prove anything, making that kind of an assertion, and people did say the opposite, but they just dismissed those people as being, well, Tertullian said the opposite, but he was a heretic anyway, okay, later in his life he became a wantonness, but he's the father of Western theology, you don't just dismiss him because you don't like what he did at the end of his life, or Eusebius, well, Eusebius was a Trinitarian heretic, so what he says about a completely different topic, we can just dismiss it, so much for church history, once you seriously accept the idea that this is dogmatic teaching and simply has to be accepted, then you'll do whatever you need to do with history, in light of that dogmatic position, so that's what we saw here, so anyway, if we don't get to this, we'll never get to any of this, but again, I've heard from the 12 of you who are enjoying this, I appreciate it, thank you, there might be a couple others, if anyone ever says, you people, you just do what you do to get the clicks and the follows, in this series, we do do at least a couple of clicks, two or three, two or three clicks, we do get those, let's be honest, this is not how you build an empire, NXR ain't doing none of this, they do have Dale Partridge doing some pretty weird stuff, no two ways about that, anyway, let's get back, we started three, we need to get to it because it's already 20 minutes still, if I'm seeing that correctly, we believe the most good God to have from eternity predestined unto glory those whom he has chosen and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom he has rejected, but not so that he would justify the one and consign and condemn the other without cause, so, it's been a number of weeks since we did this, what you need to remember, I'm a little surprised, I haven't gone looking for it, maybe some of the rest of you have found it, but I'm a little surprised that I don't see more provisionists quoting this material because the Eastern Orthodox who have dogmatically condemned Calvinism as heresy, we've played Eastern Orthodox on the program saying, I can't even conceive of how someone who believes what Calvin believed could ever be a Christian, I mean it's just so abhorrent, and that's what Vinesh D'Souza is saying, that's what Jenna Ellis is saying, who knows, maybe they'll end up being Eastern Orthodox too, shouldn't have said that, but when it happens, I'm going to get blamed for it, but the concurrence here is pretty strong, really, really is, and so what you see here is, sounds like God from eternity predestined unto glory those whom he has chosen, and of consign and condemnation those whom he has rejected, but not so that he would justify the one and consign and condemn the other without cause, well, no one says without cause, ultimate cause is the glory of God, the ultimate cause is the demonstration of his grace, the praise of his glorious grace, the Odyssey, so on and so forth, but that's not what this is talking about, this is without cause in the creature, and that's what he's responding to, the reformed element of Cyril Lucaris' confession, that's what this is responding to.