Note: Can I Say This at Church is produced for audio listening. If able, I strongly encourage you to listen to the audio, which has inflection, emotion, sarcasm where applicable, and emphasis for points that may not come across well in written word. This transcript is generated using a combination of my ears and software, and may contain errors. Please check the episode for clarity before quoting in print.

Back to the Audio Episode

Nathan Jacobs 0:00

So what the incarnation is, is not, hey, we need to sacrifice in order to remedy this whole judicial problem that we've got in the future. Christianity is about our corrupted species: the creator, the Son of God, the logos, right, the agent of creation, interest our species, in order to heal it and repair it and make it incorruptible from the inside. So that, that lifeline back to God is, you know, sort of reconnected and that we through union with Him and the sort of sacramental life of repentance and so on, immitation of him can somehow partake of His incorruption. And basically, he repaid putting off our corruption for incorruption.

Seth Price 0:53

What's going on everybody. Welcome back to the show. I'm Seth. This is the can I say this at church podcast? Thank you for downloading the show today. Whether or not that was you intentionally doing it or your phone just randomly playing the next thing that it thought you would want to hear? I'm glad that it chose this. I'm glad that you did, too.

Anyway, all jokes aside, I really want to get into this one quickly because it's slightly longer than normal. And that's fine. So I brought back guest Nathan Jacobs, who was on a while back, we had a very deep conversation on that one as well. Funny story, and I think you'll hear me reference it in the show, maybe not it might be in the patron only version. I can't remember now. I ran out of memory space (the) last time I spoke to Nathan like legitimately could not record anything else. And I think we shaved it off like 45 seconds away from…I don't know what happens if you actually max out a memory card. I don't know if it corrupts. I don't know what it does. Anyhow, wasn't the case this time I came in with time to spare. So with that being said, we're going to talk a bit about begotten like what is that? What does it mean to have begotten(ness) and what does that mean for our faith for Jesus for the cosmos for you and I it is a fascinating conversation. Now we do jump off a few rabbit trails and I mean, what kind of a conversation does it so here we go, roll the tape.

Scholar and resident of philosophy and religion in the religion now….Gosh, see…scholar in residence of philosophy and religion in the religion in the arts in contemporary culture program at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, Nathan Jacobs.

Nathan Jacobs 2:56

Yeah, you did it. It is a mouthful.

Seth Price 2:59

How are you? That feels like it feels like after religion in the arts, it doesn't feel like that should be in that sentence. But I'm, I don't know English. So doesn't matter.

Nathan Jacobs 3:10

I'm doing all right. I'm doing all right. Not bad. How are you? It's been a while.

Seth Price 3:14

It has been, I don't know, year and a half, maybe longer, maybe less? I don't know. Time is, um, time shifts with little league seasons. So it's just one little league season to the next. So I'm good. I'm good, man. Um, I'm glad you reached back out. You are among a handful of people that I'm like, “That was a fun conversation”. And literally, I still tell that. So I don't think I've ever said this on the show. For those listening in our first episode, which I'll link somewhere in the transcripts. I do that now. I transcribe the episodes because I need other things to keep me busy. Yeah, I ran out of memory in the middle of our conversation. So literally at the end is like some I have five minutes left. You have five minutes. It's a hard stop. And then it's it will stop you. I don't know if it corrupts the file. I don't actually know what happens. I just know it stops. So I came a little better prepared today. But yeah, so you had reached out and before we get there, so what is new? It's been a couple years. What is new, what should people know?

Nathan Jacobs 4:19

Well, I mean, there's a lot new. Let's see I've I'm no longer University Kentucky as the title you read indicates I moved from Kentucky to Tennessee (in the) Nashville area, now affiliated with Vanderbilt as opposed to UK. But a big part of the move was because of my ongoing work in film. So I don't know how much I can disclose about the projects I'm working on. But suffice to say, it sounds like the next project, much bigger project than any of my previous ones, has now been green-lit or will be this week. As well as what looks like could be how do I say this…in a cryptic way, an opportunity to keep on doing more film projects. well beyond that. So anyway, I'll just say that things are heating up in terms of the film side of things. And then I mean, in terms of academics and all that I continue to write and speak and publish, but film has been a sort of primary focus. And, and then, you know, my Substack I suppose I should plug that to right? So I started a Substack, which, for me was a little odd because so I mentioned to you this one friend of mine, Grant, who we have some sort of mutual connection with. He a Lutheran pastor. We met initially because he reached out to me because he wanted to learn Patristics. So he was a student of mine. And then, and then anyway, we developed a friendship over time. And he realized, whoa! You tend to write these emails to people in answer to questions that are really, really long, and really theologically rich, you should publish those! Which to me, if you look at my publications, they're all academic journals, like Cambridge and things like that. And it's like, well, what journal would publish in any of these? And he’s like, “no, there's this thing called the internet, you can publish things for whatever you want”. And I was like really? Is that called publishing? I didn't know that. That's weird.

So anyway, so that's where the Substack thing emerging. So basically, it's exactly what it says it's theological letters that I've written over the years to people. And there's probably like, 70 plus such letters that I'm just slowly rolling out. And so anyway, yeah, so that's, that's…NathanAJacobs.substack.com. Yeah, is the address.

Seth Price 6:49

That's fun. And you've enjoyed doing it so far.

Nathan Jacobs 6:53

Yeah, I mean, in many ways, I find these letters, they're, they're enjoyable for me to write. Because to do the sort of high level academic publishing that I typically do, it's, you know, I enjoy that too. But it's a it's a lot more laborious to work through and create sort of citation and quotation apparatus and things like that. Whereas when people just ask you theological questions and say, “Oh, let me give you an answer” and some of that falls away. There's, I don't know, there's, I find it a lot. I have I find it rather fulfilling to just sit there and just share a theological answer without the pressure of all the academic apparatus.

And so to actually put that out there and say, “Oh, well, maybe there are some other people who would want to read these other than just the one person I wrote them for”. I guess we'll see.

Seth Price 7:41

I guess we'll see. Yeah, I can relate to that. That was the whole reason I started the show. I had questions. And then other people were like, “You should put that on the internet”. And it's like, why this these are my questions. And then it's, and then other people are like, yeah, but that's, I have that question.

So yeah, so I'm gonna I'm gonna guess a venture of what your video is. And this was, again, I didn't really know what your answer was going to be. So I'm guessing that you're making a newer version of The Chosen little, Jesus, TV style. But more for the Eastern, you know, after after Nicea, that region. So it's just going to be those couple 100 years there? That feels right. Why not? Right?!

Nathan Jacobs 8:20

Why not!

No, I mean, I can see why you went there. So it's just…I’ll say this…it's a horror movie. So I'll just say that.

Seth Price 8:28

Um, well, I mean, depending on your denomination, also could still fit. (laughs from both) Also could still.

Nathan Jacobs 8:36

I suppose that's fair. I suppose that's fair.

Seth Price 8:42

All right. I'm horrible. I'm gonna burn. I'm horrible. All right. So I do want to get down to business mostly because I know you have a hard stop, and my son will come home around the same time, and then the dogs will get crazy. And, you know, life will take back over.

So you had sent me your substack. And then for those listening, so Nathan yours is the only the second sub sect that I subscribed to. It's not something that I search out. But it is something that I'm like, when I get in there. And I find one I'm like, I like this because there's almost something where I find that authors or people that are expressing their thoughts tend to write in a little bit different way when they know that there's people paying for the content. Maybe you're less guarded, maybe you're not? I don't know, in there, though…what were you going to say?

Nathan Jacobs 9:22

No, no, no, no. No, I do. I do. Well, you know, no, I do hope…I tried to make sure that the content is worth paying for. I'll just say that. Yeah, in terms of the point that people write differently if they know.

Seth Price 9:36

Yeah, well, I mean, for context for those that have never subscribed to substack. Like you will spend more on a burnt Starbucks coffee with caramel every week. Um, yeah. So I mean, why are we…why are you playing games? Just do it. Anyway, same thing could be said for Patreon, though, usually plug that at the end, but why not? Okay, so there's like a four part series. He's here. And I'm not even really sure I'm saying some of the words right? That will that will be my Protestant ignorance, right? So you got a “Begotten Not Made? Is the Nicene Distinction Cogent? and even the word cogent may need some definition I had to Google, it's fine.

But there's like a seven part premise here. And I'll just kind of in a nutshell, give that premise and then we can go wherever we need to go. And I'll ask the next dumb question, which will honestly be 100% truthful because that's about where I'm at. So as I've read through some of this, so you basically build on the Eunomiam you know, I don't even know if I'm saying that, right, that argue the following:

• That all that which is begotten is caused

• The Son is begotten of the Father

• Therefore, the Son is caused

• All that which exists is in itself is not caused

• Therefore, the Son that is not that which exists

• All that which bears the divine essence is that which exists (a se) I'm not sure what that means.

• And then therefore, the Son is not that which bears the divine essence.

Which I have…I don't…I told somebody what we were talking about. And they were like, Yeah, that's fascinating. Tell me more. I tried to tell them a little more. And they said, interesting. Oddly enough, one of them gave this same…well, what about the angels? Which I think is in like the second version of this, like, well, I was like, funny you say that? I just read that yesterday. So where should we begin for someone like myself that grew up in a western church that is spoon fed 20 minute homilies every Sunday, and then we don't think about religion outside of that or theology? Where should we begin with even trying to tackle the topic of sure “begottenness”?

Nathan Jacobs 11:45

Yeah. So I think one of the things I mean, out of curiosity, can I ask what denomination church you go to is so sure. I currently go to a cooperative Baptist Church, which where I'm at in Virginia, it basically just means Yeah, we have women in ministry, and our views on homosexuality our own stay out of our business. I don't want your missing money SBC. And so don't tell me what to do. Yeah, but I've also gone to nondenominational. I've been to Lutheran churches, I've I've attended Presbyterian churches, Pentecostalism usually scares me. You know, because why not? We're not supposed to raise your hands in church, there's no raising of hands. SoNathan Jacobs 12:25

Well, the reason I asked was because I was curious whether or not your church says the Nicene Creed, right, because the Nicene Creed is, you know, one of the only, you know sort of commonalities you have sort of crudely speaking between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics and then carried over into the Protestant traditions right so Lutheran still say it if you know least traditional Lutherans like Missouri Synod, one's more conservative Lutheran stead, you know, the reformed set, Anglican said and so on. So, so in the Nicene Creed, this sort of broadly ecumenical statement, one of the only Creed's the only creed, that is said, in both east and west churches, there's this statement that, you know, the sudden that, that the Son of God is begotten, not made, right. And I think plenty of being of the same essence as or being oneness with the Father. And, and I think one of the things that happens is a lot of people hear that right, or they read, you know, that God's only begotten Son and John 316. And, and they're just like, I don't know what that word means, but okay. And they just kind of shrug Him and accept it. And not thinking about this sort of conundrum that really emerges. Which is that begotten, that's the same language used in like, all the genealogies Abraham begat Isaac. Yeah. Right. And so the fact of the matter is, it's, it's a causal word, like it indicates that the father cause the sun to exist, which, you know, for some people, they go, Well, I guess that must be talking about his humanity or something, and they just sort of shrug and move on, not realizing that the way the term was understood historically in the church, as well as you know, in in certain other, you know, letters like Hebrews, it's pretty clearly an indication of the sun being caused, as God right like, His divine nature him as divine is caused before he ever is incarnate. So he's the only begotten with reference to his divinity. And that raises some interesting questions like I thought God couldn't be caused, right. And that's really the syllogism that you read, which I'm guessing, you know, was probably hard for most people to follow but if they go to the sub sect, they can actually see it, like, laid out. It's it's an analytic breakdown of the you know, Mian, objection and the you know, means we're seminarians which I'll say what that is, but then I do another version of that in part four, where I restate in a different way, but the point was that people like areas areas of Alexandria one of the big heretics, right of the early church, the the area in dispute was the one that was so divisive that it required the first Ecumenical Council, right, this council with representatives from the entire church to sort of look at this and say, well, areas is teaching one thing Athanasius, his opponent is teaching another, you know, which one is the faith that we received? Basically, areas, his position was pretty common sense. You know, he just said, Look, he's begotten. Whenever you cause something, there's like a time before you cause it, and then you cause it, and then there it is, right. So there must be a time when the Son of God didn't exist. When God was not a father, he's just God. He's not God, the Father is just God. Then he decided he wanted a son. So he began them. And and then he came into being, and you know, and there is, and this is what sparked the controversy, because people like Athanasius, recognize, wait a second, if there's a time he was not and then it came into being, then you're actually you're not saying he's God, you're saying he's a creature? He's actually created. He's made and an areas was kind of like, well, yeah, I guess he is. He's the greatest of all the creatures, right? Most godlike of all the creatures. And what was interesting is while a lot of people recognize, okay, I'm pretty sure that's not like Orthodox Christian, there being little Orthodox, Orthodox Christian thinking to say that the Son of God is a creature, I'm pretty sure we're supposed to say that he's God. But they kind of stopped there. And they don't realize that the Orthodox position contrary areas was no he's begotten, not made. And so you get into this weird thing where they're saying, no, he's caused, but not the way areas is suggesting he's caused. And so they're still saying, no, he's caused, but he's not created. And that's what if you pause for a minute you go, Well, how does that work? Yeah, that's a little weird.

Seth Price 17:02

I've done math. That's not how math works. One plus two is three. Yeah.

Nathan Jacobs 17:07

So So anyway, this whole response was initially and with each of these letters on substack, I, I always opened by giving the context right who wrote to me my although a veil their identity, who wrote to me why what occasion and this was actually, this was a scholarly friend of mine, right? A friend who we did our PhDs together. And so he was like, okay, look, man, I know, I'm not supposed to say this, but just between you and me. I'm not sure I, I buy into the begat not made. Like, I'm not sure it's coherent philosophically. And it wasn't the first time I'd heard that I'd mentioned when you brought up the angels thing, there's a article, O'Brien left out his philosophy out at Oxford. And he gives this whole thought experiment to try to explain why he just thinks it's incoherent. Right? It's it's not a cogent not a coherent position to say that, you know, he's forgotten not made that you're still just saying he's a creature. Yeah. And so he opposes he opposes the distinction. And so basically, my my friend was asking me for help, is kind of saying, Okay, I know that you buy into this, and I trust you, I trust that your sharp guy helped me out understand how on earth, this is a coherent distinction. And so I was like, Okay, sure. And I started to write a letter, which then turned into a journal article, which is now published in religious studies. And so, rather than actually sending him a proper letter, I just sent him a journal article. Like,

Seth Price 18:41

I wrote it, and I'm not doing it twice.

Nathan Jacobs 18:43

Right, but substack I still tried to strip out some of the apparatus and make it a little more letter like and but I had to break it into four parts, because it was just too long for substack

Seth Price 18:53

Did you know that there was a word limit before you begin? I didn't. Oh, no. You hit Ctrl C Ctrl. V? Dang it. Yeah. He's

Nathan Jacobs 19:02

like, no, no, this is way too long. It's like how long do I have to keep?

Seth Price 19:08

Because then you have to reframe everything fine. How many times do I have to do this? Yeah, that's right. Yes. Right. Yeah. So So I have a question that I thought about as I was driving home okay, so I think that often people and this may be a dumb question and if it is, tell me if it if it is, so be gotten for me, okay, here we go. So if things are created, right for Earth, and so that's what I want to focus on. How could they could could there be a be gotten this before the creation of Earth because the universe doesn't say that every you know what I mean? Maybe I'm not asking this correctly. I don't. I don't think I am actually. Yeah, give it another shot. I am struggling. As I'm saying it out loud. I realized how ridiculous it sounds. And this is the downside of not being able to edit the video, because everyone will see how ridiculous I am. Okay, so be godness. And creation only seems to matter for the salvation of people on earth because Earth is the central focus point. Correct? Like we're talking about the divinity of Jesus, correct?

Nathan Jacobs 20:12

Well, if you're asking me from the eastern patristic stance, which is what I'm doing, not correct, but keep on going.

Seth Price 20:18

So my question would be, then, what could there be a be gotten this before the Earth's Earth's relation to be gotten even matters?

Nathan Jacobs 20:29

If I let me try to rephrase what I think you're you're trying to get at? Yeah, right. Is it? Is it really that you're sort of suggesting that? Well, let's say that Arius is sort of right, you know, maybe maybe we ditch the word created, but we still say begotten and still causal. And we sort of do this, like, here's the line where all the creatures creatures are, and then back here, you know, over here on this behind this line, there's this other causal moment that we called the godness. Is it something like that?

Seth Price 21:03

No. Okay, let me try to make it so. Okay. So there's, there's life on Polaris, and we realize crap, we need a corporeal form of the Divine to come in and make things right and so I begotten then and now I come down to earth, and I'm going to redo creation. And we've got our own narrative of that in the Bible. The begotten already happened.

Nathan Jacobs 21:28

Oh, see? Now here it sounds like though you're you're associating the goddness with the taking on of the Boreal. Is that right? Yeah, maybe that's wrong. That's yeah, so that's the part that's not not right. Okay. So um, so, you know, so begotten this actually refers to let's pretend there, let's do it this way. Let's pretend there is no incarnation ever, right? There's just the Holy Trinity. begotten, as well as spy ration like or proceeding, right, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Or if you're in the West, father and son, those are both causal terms. And so within their Trinitarian theology in the eastern fathers, which is what I'm focused on here, is the father is uncaused. Nobody causes him, but he causes the Son and the Spirit to exist and to have His divine nature. That's what the claim is. And so even if there were no sort of redemption history, in the sense of the Son of God becoming incarnate, the son would still be begotten. Okay, and his divinity, that's the claim, okay. And that's where areas is trying to get his head around, how is he not then a creature? Does he have to be a creature? And so a lot of what I'm trying to do is break down and that's the same thing my friend was asking and same thing Brian left out was, you know, arguing in his article, what I'm trying to show is that there's pretty significant and philosophically robust. You know, Kate nut arguments being made here for how that distinction does make sense. So

Seth Price 23:06

yeah, okay. Should

Nathan Jacobs 23:08

we talk about

Seth Price 23:09

this? Yeah, yeah, we, we should. Yeah. But we

Nathan Jacobs 23:13

want to make sure we're set up the the problem, right. I mean, do you feel like you understand what, what the problem is? Well, yes,

Seth Price 23:17

it was more of me playing devil's advocate of okay, well, the universe is, however, all the universes and God exists at a faster speed than the speed of light. And so what does be gotten mean? I had near Neil deGrasse Tyson, in the back of my head saying, you know, that, if we look at 1000 years from now, we won't even know the light? And what would that eliminated when we look out over it? Because that portion of space is already outside of our observable understanding, which is our understanding. So that's the reason I was just ruminating on things. So I don't know. Anyway, may have derailed everything, probably not. Let me try to refocus. So there is a part on the second part of what you've written, that you say the difficulty is that objects consist of more than just form there is, for example, an enduring subject that sits beneath these forms hypostasis, as well as the substrate substratum of matter in which forms come to be, and then you go on to talk about something called epoch noia, which I'm also not good with. And then you use hyper osios. I'm not saying that right, either. What is all those? What does that have to do with anything but itself? Okay, so let's, let's try to let's try to make this a little more. Sort of, like, intelligible. So

Nathan Jacobs 24:36

let me let me do it.

Seth Price 24:40

I told you I was coming from a place of ignorance.

Nathan Jacobs 24:42

Well, that's that's fine. So let's do it this way. Right. So I think one of the there's there's several differences between making and getting, right and that's really what all of this is about is trying to say, okay, when you say we got not made, what are the differences right? Is it just like that big garden happened a long time ago? Is that you know, what sort of what sort of verbal voodoo are you doing when you make this sort of distinction. And my whole point is that there's pretty substantive distinction. So I think the the main place where I would sort of begin to boil it down, would be and this gets to some of the things that you were just citing in there the substratum of matter and formal properties and the hypothesis and things like that. So within the area and dispute since that's, that's where this really comes to fall to the fore. There are certain arguments being leveled by Athanasius, that I find this these were actually Incidentally, the first, the first aspects of patristic thought that clued me into everything that I talked about in this article Athanasius, he talks about, you know, that the things are created out of nothing. And this is pretty standard, most people like know that, that the pagans thought that there's a Demiurge in the Demiurge sculpt set a pre existing matter, it's already there, and you just sort of shapes it. Whereas the Christians think that God makes not just the stuff, but you know, this stuff out of which the stuff is made, right like that it's created out of nothing, it doesn't use pre existing material. But Athanasius uses then this other technical distinction, that I think a lot of people would miss if they were reading Athanasius. But so jumped out to me, which that Athanasia says that things move from non being into being right. And he talks about the natural state of a thing being not being and can retreat to non being. So part of the background here is actually a problem in ancient philosophy precedes the Christians of generation. Okay, so you and I accept just as a given that things come into being right, like there are plants that sort of move into existence, and then deteriorate and go out of existence. There's animals that move into existence and go out of existence, right? Like, this is just common sense. We look around, we see it all the time. And we take that for granted no big deal. But in ancient philosophy, specifically the eleatic school, they looked at that they're like, I don't think that makes any sense whatsoever that that happens. And here's why. Right? So I'll try to articulate the problem.

The problem is there like, Okay, so let's say that, let's pick an example here. Let's pretend that that this pen moves into existence, right? This is the thing that is generated, right? It comes to be. And so we're gonna say that this pen moves into being there like, well, here's the problem things either are, or they're not, right, they either there's no such thing as like, it's sort of exists, they exist, or they don't exist. And their point is, if it doesn't exist, then it first of all, isn't in it at all. Second of all, it can't do anything, including move into existence. So you're kind of talking nonsense. But if you jump to the other side, and you say, well, it already exists before it exists. Well, then why does it need to move into existence in the first place? It already exists? Yeah. So their Point is like, there's no coherent way of even formulating talk of generation, I understand that we all look around and we say it's happening. But they're like, it doesn't make any sense. And so there were several solutions to this. But you know, Aristotle solution was that what he suggested is there actually is a middle between existence and nothingness. And he suggested that's potentiality. So you have the potential to be stronger than you are right, you could go and do some weightlifting and usher that sort of potential into actuality. That potential is not nothing. It is something right. But it's less than concrete, actual strength. And so Aristotle suggests that actually is an ontological, middle, right? Middle between nothing and something. And according to Aristotle, that's what makes possible generation and corruption, things aren't moving from nothing to something, they're moving from potentially something to actually something potential to actual. Like conceptually, I always like using the idea of a fabric right a shapeless bit of fabric, where it's like, well, it's potentially spherical is potentially cubicle, you know, move around, potentially in a number of shapes. And that potential becomes concretely real. If I wrap it around a ball right now. It's now it's potential to be spherical is actual right? It's actually spherical. And so what Aristotle talked about, as he talked about the distinction between form and matter, that potential right that potential to be something that's what Aristotle thought matter really is what does matter. It's really just the potential to be stuff And then what happens is when it manifests concrete properties, spirituality, for example, these drawing on, you know, his teacher Plato's terms, these are forms right formal properties. So we identify them with abstract nouns right? Sphere, right, we can talk about this sort of abstract nature of sphere. And spirituality manifests in the matter. And that's where that potential to be spherical moves from potential to concretely real. And what we call corruption or degeneration, right is just where that then retreats from matter. And it just goes back to potential. So that's the basic concept that Aristotle used in order to solve that problem. Well, one of the other terms that Aristotle used for potential was non being. And the reason to use non being is because it's softer than nothing, right? It's just not quite being right. You know, it's not being relative to things that are being right. And so when Athanasius says that, if areas His Son of God is created, right, he says, Then he moved from non Bing to being he moved from a potential Bing to an actual Bing. Now, you might say, okay, so what? Let's just pretend that's true, right? Let's just pretend areas, right. And that's true. So what? Well, this is what gets you to a critical distinction in an Athanasius. Athanasius suggests that, that right there is the dividing line between God and creatures. You want to know what makes a creature a creature and not God, we come into be.

And that's why we're susceptible to mutation. Because that first movement is a mutation, we transition from something we weren't to something we are. That's why we're susceptible to corruption, deterioration, retreating, from what we are back to, you know, relative non being, yeah. And it goes through all these sort of entailments that he says, that's just what creatures are. And so in Athanasius, as mine, what he suggests is there's this dividing line between God and creatures. And on the one side, are all the things that come into being angels, humans, and if areas His Son of God came into being than areas, His Son of God, and on the other side is God, who fully is what he is, you know, and doesn't transition into being or doesn't become something he wasn't, or so on and so forth. Now, there's significant, you know, there's significant points for his understanding of the Christian gospel and things like that, that I'd be happy to talk about. But I'd say the first starting point for really getting our heads around what's going on in this discussion is exactly that. That Athanasius. And then, as I point out in, in other publications and things like that other other use of stern fathers with them, they really see they're the gulf between God and creatures to be that, right? That creatures are things that come into being and then from coming, the fact that that we come into being unfolds all these other metaphysical entailments, like that were mutable, changeable, like that were corruptible, like that were insensitive, some sense temporal, because there's a before and after to our existence that were finite and circumscribe bubble because our existence wasn't infinite, it had a certain definite starting point, so on So where there's a host of that were material, including angels, right? Yeah. All of these things start to naturally unfold from that. And that's where Athanasius sort of freaks out, because he's like, areas what you're proposing when you say that there was not a time that he existed and then he came into being, you have now definitively placed him on this side of the god creature divide. And he's really ontologically speaking no different than the rest of us. And Athanasius thinks that's why areas Christ can't save any of the creatures. Because we need something that's not a creature to save us.

Seth Price 34:17

It's that time of the episode, give me 30 seconds or so I'll be right back.

Thinking on being a non being, there's no value in being either than in that mindset, like the value I guess, would be the consciousness awareness that you are being

Nathan Jacobs 34:41

so so in terms of like, the value of things, right. The idea is that, that when you talk about something being good or bad or greater or lesser or something like that, there's certain targets, right? So think about it. Think about it this way. There's only one way one correct way to draw a circle, right? To draw a perfect circle, there's one way to do it all the points have to be an equal distance from a common century, you know, then that flowing circumference, there are an infinite number of ways to miss draw circle. And and, and the reason that's significant is because if change is arbitrary, then there is no better or worse change, right? It's just change. But if it's progress, if it's moving toward, there has to be a target, right, that you're getting closer toward. And so in this sense, what they would suggest is that non being or non being is an evil, right? The potentiality of matter isn't evil. In fact, Gregory of Nyssa says, it's good. And so far as if you're a corrupt person who needs to repent, you know, that potential to be other than you are is the very thing that makes it possible for you to repent and become good, you know, so you should be thankful for it. Yeah. Right. So, you know, non being in itself isn't, you know, good or evil, it just sort of is it's this sort of a ontological potential to be things. What makes something a movement, good or evil is how, whether it's moving toward its target, right. So in human nature, right, whatever the proper formation of human nature is, the closer we move toward that if the movement is toward that trajectory, it is a good movement, if it's a retreat or divergence away from it, it's a corrupt movement. Same is true with, you know, plants or with animals or whatever. So the term is good, or, you know, generation corruption, well formed, malformed, normal, abnormal, all of these terms indicates some sort of Terminus toward which you're driving. And, and basically, the idea is that movements are deemed to be good or bad relative to that, that Terminus.

Seth Price 36:52

Yeah. So not that. Not that I necessarily believe this. But it's the question that sprang to mind, what do I care about whether or not the sun is a begotten creature for a specific purpose? If the purpose is the same thing anyway? Like, like, I create an arrow to shoot a target, what do I care? The point was to shoot the target or the point was for sanctification or salvation or Theosis, or whatever word you want to wrap around that? Why does it matter?

Nathan Jacobs 37:21

Okay, so to answer this question, I have to tell you how wildly different the Eastern patristic concept of Christianity is from probably Christianity as you think of it. Okay. So, let's, let's go back to this one point that I just mentioned about the fact that, you know, every creature of metaphysical necessity, is mutable, right? Because like this, what Athanasios says explicitly, and then Alexandria of Alexandria says, the

Seth Price 37:49

environment I see is a mutable you mean changeable, right. changeable, okay.

Nathan Jacobs 37:52

So the term the Greek term is Alios. Right? And it just means to become something you weren't. Right. So, right. So in this case, you're potentially a human and now you're actually a human. Right? That's, that's a change, right? I did it. I did it. So an Aristotle in his physics says this explicitly, that the first moment of things existence begins with a mutation, right, a transition into being right. And so since mutation or you know, Alioto, is what it indicates is this, you know, change in ontology, the shifting ontology, since what a creature is is something that moves from non being into being, that means that to be a creature is to be mutable. Right? That's, that's, there's no way of doing it otherwise. And in fact, Athanasius and the council's and all that they're really clear, they're like, not even God can make an immutable creature. Like, that's like talking about him making square circles, you know, or something like that. They're like, No, it's not even a coherent statement. Now, the reason that's important though, is because change right mutability entails the possibility of change for good, but it also entails the possibility of change for bad, right? The very potential to be otherwise is what underwrites the potential to improve or to degenerate. And so mutability, the flip side of that is that every creature is also a metaphysical, necessity corruptible. Okay, we can deteriorate, we can die. In the case of spiritual or moral beings, we can cling to God. And here, keep in mind, I don't want to go down a rabbit hole. But basically, for the Eastern fathers, they think of holiness, virtue, perfection, as uniquely divine traits. So when those are manifesting creatures, that's because the creature is somehow participating in the divine nature. So, so you become those things by clinging to God, or you retreat from God and you become spiritually and morally corrupt, right? Like that's kind of how that works, too. So every creature is corruptible. So let's do a thought. bearment Right in Christianity is probably it's pretty common to think of, well, what's the human condition that, you know, Christianity exists to remedy? And it's like, well, we sin. And there's this judge, and he's going to judge us at some point. And that's a problem because we broke the law, right? That's kind of how Western Christianity tends to think about it. But let's, let's put aside the whole sin thing for a minute. Let's just say that, you know, God makes the world nobody sins, right? So, so far, things are trucking along pretty good. Nobody's sinning. Nobody's violating the law. Here's the problem of metaphysical necessity. We're all susceptible to corruption, we can all screw the whole thing up at any moment, we can plumb it the whole cost,

Seth Price 40:43

no pressure, no pressure, right? No

Nathan Jacobs 40:45

pressure, just white knuckle it a little few more millennia. Right? No big deal. And, and in many ways, for the Eastern fathers, when they look at Christianity, they see the creature they see this not just as a human condition. That's why I'd said the whole thing that you'd set it as about salvation, being about humans isn't the way they think about it. Actually, it's, it's about the cosmos as a whole creatures, the creaturely condition is that we're all susceptible to corruption. And that's this threat, this time bomb looming over the head of all of creation, all the time, just because of what we are. It looms over the head of angels over humans, dogs, cats, you know, lions, tigers, and bears. And so like the and, and that is the thing that they think Christianity exists to remedy now, yes, corrupt ability, right, has manifested into actual corruption in our circumstance. But that's a manifestation of the problem. The problem was there before it ever happened. And so the big question that they have, the big question they have is, how do you ever escape it? And their answer is that the only way to escape corruption is to participate in or partake in the only nature that's incorruptible. And so they noticed throughout Scripture, how often Paul will talk about the resurrection from the dead being the putting off of corruption for in corruption, or Peter talking about the corruption that has come upon the world due to sin, and that we escaped that corruption by protecting the divine nature. And so in their mind what Christianity is there to offer the only lifeline the only hope the creatures have is to somehow participate in God participate in divinity, to partake of God's own incorruption immortality, untouchability, moral, spiritual interoperability, and become, you know, good, right, virtuous, etc. And that's the only hope of escaping that now. If we hold on to that for a minute, then what you realize is that the whole point of the incarnation of Christianity is to offer you that. So what the incarnation is, is not, hey, we need to sacrifice in order to remedy this whole judicial problem that we've got in the future. Christianity is about our corrupted species, the creator, the Son of God, the logos are the agent of creation, enters our species, in order to heal it and repair it and make it incorruptible from the inside. So that lifeline back to God is, you know, sort of reconnected and that we through union with Him, and the sort of sacramental life of repentance and so on, imitation of him can somehow partake of His in corruption and basically be remade, putting off our corruption for in corruption. Now, if you look at Christianity in those terms, all of a sudden areas, undoes the whole thing. Because if areas puts the Son of God on the creaturely side of that divide, and makes him a mutable, corruptible creature, he can't fix, he can't help any of the other creatures, he's in the same boat as us, even if you've never since. And so that shifts, you have to have that shift in how they see the Christian faith, how they see the creaturely condition, how they see what Christianity offers, in order to understand why Arianism was a big deal and why it was critical to say, no, no, no, he's not made. Because he's made he comes into being that he's mutable, corruptible, etc. He's begotten. And that's something different.

Seth Price 44:18

I'm curious, and you did not write about it. And maybe it's because it's irrelevant to the conversation. Where does so everyone talks about God the Father, and then there's the Son, and then the Spirit never gets spoken about. So where does is there? Is there a big gotten this mindset about spirit at all? Is there any, any Yeah, place at the table for that part of the conversation?

Nathan Jacobs 44:40

Yeah, it's not the godness. Right, because he's the only only begotten. Yeah, right. Yeah. But it's still causal, right. So the language of the Spirit proceeds from the Father, right? And then the whole dispute about proceeds from the Father and Son, that procession language or spy ration or outbreeding, language is another causal term and So all the same questions you'd raise about the Son of God, just as relevant to the Spirit. And I actually, I think, I don't know if I'd survived in the sort of letter version on substack. But in the in the published version, I actually have a footnote where I say, by the way, all of these arguments can just be applied to the Holy Spirit to it's just as relevant to that the same problems begin to emerge. And incidentally, this is, yeah, I mean, I don't want to go into the whole filio clay, but, but suffice it to say, this is a sorry, I said, filioque when most people probably don't know what that means. Okay.

Seth Price 45:31

What does it mean? Or more importantly, I, I'm not as concerned with what it means because you want to go into I am curious how you spell it, because I don't even know how to Google that for the transcripts.

Nathan Jacobs 45:40

Okay, F I L. Billy. I O

Seth Price 45:46

QU E? Yeah, there's no way there's no way I would have wrote that down. Correct. Is that

Nathan Jacobs 45:51

right? I think I spelled that, right. So it's, it's, it's really awesome, right? Which is son, okay. And then when you add Quaid to the end of a word in Latin, that's a add, right? So it's and the Son. And there's no, though, because Latin doesn't have definite articles. So filioque way, in the Nicene Creed, when it was first written the original version, it says, An in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and give her life who proceeds from the Father, and with the Father, and the son is worshipped and glorified. The Latin iteration Rome adds to it, the filioque way who proceeds from the Father and the Son. And this becomes doctrinally one of the big splits between the East and West, even though it's very clear that division is is far more than just that. But the point is, like, when, when you see for example, the only thing I was gonna say just about that is, for example, when Christ talks about sending the Holy Spirit. Yeah, yeah. Like, in the east, sending the Holy Spirit. You know, on his impossibles, you know, he's totally different than precession. Right? When you're talking about precession, you're talking about the causation, the eternal causation of the spirit by the father, just like you're talking about the eternal beginning, you know, of the sun, you know, you're not talking about the incarnation. Right. So in the same way with the spirit procession is speaking about the eternal causation of the Spirit, not the sending of the spirit at Pentecost.

Seth Price 47:14

Okay, so, okay. Um, yeah, I want to change gears as to other questions unrelated to the substack article in question, mostly, because I think I would need five or six hours to work through a 10th of my questions, of which there were many. But there are and I only say this, because I know that we have a stop coming. And so there are two questions that I've asked everyone. I don't believe I ever asked them. Have you? Maybe I did back in the day, I honestly don't remember. And I'm too lazy to find out. We don't remember either. I'm too lazy to find out. So I am curious on this, though, because I think church for you has a different definition than church over in western sub subset of proselytization. And the way that we do church on a Sunday, or whatever the day is. So what are some things forward thinking that you feel as though congregants of the church capital C church should be intentionally allowed to talk about without fear of repercussions? And to not do so will damage people or the church as a whole?

Nathan Jacobs 48:11

Oh, well, I think I probably answer that in two different ways. I mean, the one is, I think, I think all of the topics should be up for grabs. I mean, if you, you, I mean, you know, the film becoming truly human. You know that my whole journey toward orthodoxy into orthodoxy, had everything to do with delving deep into philosophical and theological history. And it was, as I think I talked about this a little bit in our her first interview way back when, what I mentioned that that actually was the very thing that pushed me away from Western Christianity. And I embraced the doubt of the philosophers and I became a student of Kant and liveness, and modern philosophy, and then sort of anyway, on and on, and when, until I sort of worked my way back around and ended up in Eastern Orthodoxy. But I think, you know, I questions are the sort of thing if you have a good guide, right, it's always hard when you ask good questions, but you don't have good works or answers. So it's important that you have some good guides to help the answers. Just Google. Yeah, just know, don't just, but,

but. But, but, no, I mean, I think, a lot of the questions so if you look at I'm a big fan of hard questions, right? And so if, for example, you looked at my not my substack but just my my publishing stuff, I spent a lot of time with Immanuel Kant, Kant supposedly the all destroyer of metaphysics and the enemy of Christianity and all this sort of stuff. And, and, you know, I did a whole article on Kant's objection to divine revelation, right. He thinks if God were to reveal himself, you know, we wouldn't couldn't even know it's God talking all this sort of stuff like that. And I grapple with that I'm like, Okay, well Let's hear it Kant, right. Like, let's hear the case and grapple with it. And so I really do think, as somebody who's confident that, you know, Christianity is true. I think all the questions are great, and up for grabs, mainly because I think they all have answers. And I think wrestling with them is fruitful. Right. And so like, I think that's true. Now, I think there's other things, though, that are best wrestled with not in a public forum, but in a private forum, right. You know, you brought up, you know, sexual issues, something like that. On the one hand there sort of like the I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, but just suffice to say that in our context, it tends to be a sort of socio political issue that then like is all about the public forum dispute. And my main question is, let's, let's pretend for a moment that, you know, I'm homosexual and, and let's pretend for a moment that I have a conscience problem with that. And I'm like, I don't know. Should I have a conscience problem? Should I not? How do I deal with this spiritually? What do I do? I don't think the public square is the most fruitful place for that. My spiritual father speaking from an orthodox perspective, my spiritual father is the one who is the best person to address that because it's, it's about me, right? It's not, it's not about the public square, it's about me. I'll give you an example of one such sort of very orthodox story. There's a story of this drunken monk, right? Where there was this one monk who so many people looked at, and they were like, Oh, he's such an embarrassment monastery, because every day he's smashed. And like, all the people of the town know it, and all the other monks know it. It's so scandalous. And what do we do with this guy eventually, eventually dies. The other books are like, it's about time, we can now get our reputation back. And, and one of one of the things that happens is that, at the, at the you are at the, you know, at the funeral, the abbot of the monastery talks about how this was a very good monk. And everybody's like, what is he talking about a good month ago, was

Seth Price 52:21

it a drink together, it definitely drank together. And, and

Nathan Jacobs 52:25

his ads, and he tells the story that this guy, when he was an infant was born in a war torn area. And his parents had to smuggle him across, you know, the sort of enemy line type things. And the only way to keep him silent as an infant was to feed him vodka. And so they he was a raging alcoholic, from infancy forward, came by it on. Yeah. And he came to the monastery. And he came to the monastery. And the, and the abbot was like, I mean, he's like, he was drinking like something absurd. I don't know, like, you know, you know, six, you know, six things. 12 packs of beer are like, I don't know, I mean, completely outrageous per day. And the abbot said, for your obedience, I want you to drink one less beer a day for a year. And so he did. And then the next year, he's like, I want you to drink one less beer a day for a year. And he did and kept on doing that he's like, and when he died, he was down to only six beers a day. Right? Yeah. And it's progress, you know, and he was an obedient monk, right? This is a very sort of Orthodox story. It's a very orthodox way of thinking about spirituality and things like that. But it's part of the reason why, you know, a discussion in the public square about drunkenness, and that drunkenness is sin and all these sorts of thing that's not going to help that guy. What that guy needed is a wise spiritual father, like his habit that he had. And thankfully, he had one, right. And I think what oftentimes happens in the public discussion of so many things that are deeply personal and deeply relevant to a person's soul is that the person that they're most relevant to gets lost in the discussion. And so anyway, I that's where I would say I'd say all the questions, all the discussions are good, all of them are up for grabs. I, I love good hard questions and wrestling with them. But I also think that there's a need for wisdom of the appropriate time and place and people they have those discussions with, I suppose that would be my next.

Seth Price 54:33

Yeah. So I said two questions. I have three because the other one, this one should be quick. So at the beginning of the four part series, you say, I don't know if this is a good argument, but I will say that the gentleman is now an orthodox convert. So what was he? What wasn't prior?

Nathan Jacobs 54:47

Did I say I didn't know if it was if it was, No, I am.

Seth Price 54:51

I am implying that but you definitely say Hold on. I'll find it now cuz I don't want to I don't want to put words in your mouth. Let's see. Here's what I send in the final manuscript.

Nathan Jacobs 55:00

I think it's a good art. Yeah.

Seth Price 55:00

You say, I don't know whether or not my friend was persuaded, but he's now an orthodox convert. So Oh, is

Unknown Speaker 55:06

that what I said? Okay.

Seth Price 55:08

What was he prior?

Nathan Jacobs 55:11

I think he was like Plymouth Brethren,

Seth Price 55:13

I don't even know what that. Yeah. Okay, there's a lot of denominations.

Nathan Jacobs 55:17

Right? It's pretty, it's a very conservative Protestant. You know, denomination was actually ordained. I think within it too. Hmm. So

Seth Price 55:27

fun. So when you try to put words to whatever God is, what do you say to that?

Nathan Jacobs 55:33

Oh, so this goes to a topic that I find deeply fascinating. Okay. So, again, I'm always gonna speak from an Eastern perspective here, because I know that's kind of what you that's what you want to know. Because I'm, that's my personal, I

Seth Price 55:49

just want your answer. If it happens to be easy, that's fine. care what perspective

Nathan Jacobs 55:53

so? So and this kind of goes to one of the things that I talked about in the article where I talked about the difference between Espanola, hyperuricemia, 's and all these sorts of fancy terms like that. There's a tendency to talk about God, as if he's, you know, he's beyond, right. And he's in comprehensible. And we only speak negatively about him. And there's certainly like patristic precedents for that, where they talk about these great cloud of unknowing and you send into it and right, you leave behind all these sorts of things in the sense of a world. And there's plenty of stuff like that. But there's this other aspect of it that I think is so critical in the doctrine of God. Again, this is something that's central in eastern thinking, but it's so often lost in the West, is this distinction between the essence and the energies of God? And so the energies is this, this concept that emerges from Aristotle, he's originally develops it in reference to the unmoved mover, because he needs a term to describe how God does stuff but doesn't mutate right, because he too, has got on that other side of the non mutated line. And so he draws a distinction between Kinesis which is sort of this incomplete nutritive sequential activity, and enter Gaya, which is sort of this perfect, complete activity. And Alexandrian Jews pick up on them, they're like, they think this is really useful. They like this good way of talking about God. And so they start to use the term to but they draw a distinction. Philo of Alexandria in particular draws a distinction that Aristotle doesn't draw, which is the difference between God's essence and his energies. And, and he draws us because of the conversation that Moses has with God, where he's like, show me your glory. And he's like, you can't see my face. No man can see my face and live but I'll show you my back. And I was like, Well, what the heck does that mean? And Philo concludes that God's face is the essence of God, this sort of abyss of unarticulated divinity, that we can't possibly stare into or grasp because our mind thinks in sort of finite categories, and he's like, but the energies are his back, right? These things that exude from, you know, the nature of God. And so now that's probably sounds really all very abstract. But the analogy that I like to use to sort of articulate you know, sort of help explain this is let's pretend you know, I've got I've got a musician here. It's Bach reanimated from the dead. Alright, so we've got Bach here. And I'm like, Hey, so that he ever heard of bach,

Seth Price 58:26

bach, the one that was deaf?

Nathan Jacobs 58:28

No, that's Baito. Okay. It's Beethoven. Right? But but it is, like you've never heard of Bach says, like, Oh, he's in great music. And I started to say all this laudatory, right? Oh, he's so good. You know? Oh, so brilliant. So creative. And you're like, Yeah, okay, that's great. I can. I've learned how highly you think of him. But I don't really know too much what that actually means for him. And I'm like, Okay. Well, since I can't open up his chest and show you the unarticulated creativity that sits there, I'll give him a piano. And now listen to him. And then he just plays a movement and he plays another movement. And so now, every movement he plays is an expression or an articulation of that creativity, right? And each one like they don't exhaust it, right. One movement doesn't exhaust the creativity, completely different, one different one. And so there's a distinction, but there's still a connection, right? The the articulation is an extension or an expression of the creativity of finite circumscribed articulation. But it's not sort of the unarticulated creativity as such. And this is really kind of how at least this aspect of the essence energies distinction comes down. The Yes, it's true. When we talk about God and who God is they use the term hyper crusius, which means he's above forms right so unlike triangles, which you have definite properties, like three sightedness they can read your mind around. God doesn't have any of those definite properties, right? He is this sort of abyss of goodness, you know, and that, you know, this infinite sum of negative terms. And this way you had apophatic Yep, language or negative language about God. But a lot of people will stop there. And they'll just talk about this negative language about what God is and he can't get your mind around him. But in the essence energies distinction they actually suggest but the energies you can grasp. Just like with Bach, yeah, I can't stare into his chest at the abyss of creativity. That's unarticulated. But I can listen to him play something. And they suggest that that's, that's true of me. Right? That's true of you. Like I, you know, we spend hours and hours and hours together, I still can't like stare at your unarticulated nature, right, I get to know who you are through how its expressed, how it's articulated. And so in this way, what you start to see is, well, how do you come to know God? How do you think about God? You think about him, primarily, you learn it through how God articulates himself in Providence, in mercy in love in his activities in these energies that exude from him holiness, and so on. And there's another application of that, that I'd like to mention, but I don't know if I don't want to, we've only go for 24. Okay, go for it. So, here's another thing that I think is sort of really fascinating about how the Eastern fathers talk about God. And I mentioned this in one of the letters, I read a letter to a woman who lost several children. I don't know if you saw that one in the substack list. But in there, I talk about this one at greater length, so I'll just sort of do a cursory version of it. But in Western thinking, there's a tendency to think because there's this sort of tendency in the enlightenment, in modernity, to think of the world in these sort of mechanical terms like a clock, there's a tendency to think of the spiritual stuff is like outside of IT. And especially, you know, in modernity, it's not even clear that there's any angels or anything like that. So there's like, there's maybe just God outside of it. And you have this sort of God world divide. And so when you talk about God showing up or revealing himself, there's this tendency to almost think about God revealing himself, like he would show up as an object in the room. Right? And so if you and I are sitting here going, where is God, God, where are you, we we'd be looking for like an orb, or something, an object that shows up that, like, here he is this object. While you may have the often ease, right, things like that in the Old Testament, and things like that, that, that do sort of fit something akin to that. One of the things that's really fascinating in the eastern fathers is the idea that the primary mode by which God shows up and manifests itself is actually in in through creatures. So there's very few instances in scripture where God shows up unmediated. Right usually shows up in in through a prophet and and through an angel, right, in some elements, or, you know, in some of these cases in the office.

Seth Price 1:03:20

Yeah, a bush a donkey. Yeah,

Nathan Jacobs 1:03:23

but one of the things that, but when you consider that, I mean, one of the analogies that sometimes used to talk about this sort of concept of like mediation in the east, like the sort of mediated experiences is this analogy of metal and fire. And this sort of goes to another aspect of the divine energies. The divine energies, one of the things that people like Philo developed with the concept was the idea that the energies are communicable, right? So how do you explain a demoniac having knowledge or strength that he shouldn't have? Well, he's being energized by a demon, right? How do you explain you know, a prophet who is, you know, able to do superhuman things, right? perform miracles, well, he's being energized by God, right? That's that's sort of concept. And they would use one of the favorite analogies they would use is metal and fire. Whoa.

Seth Price 1:04:18

Okay. Give me one second. They won't be quiet. Okay. They scared me though. Sorry,

Nathan Jacobs 1:04:28

no prob. So, so one of the favorite analogies to talk about this sort of like communicable energy, right was the analogy of metal and fire. And so if you take metal you stick it in fire and heats up, it gets the point that it glows and it burns and you can take it out. And you know, you can burn stuff at aluminates you know, it's it's got these energies in it, that express the nature of fire. Now, the idea is, it's still metal, right, but something of the nature Fire, the energies that express the nature of fire have taken up residence in a metal it is now it is now energized by it. And that's how they tended to think about this concept of communicable energies. And so the idea is that, yes, the energies of God. In the West, what is typically called the attributes, but in the East their energies, right, His holiness, His righteousness, you know, all these sorts of, you know, his justice, mercy, all these sorts of things like, these are all energies in corruption, immortality, right are things that can be communicated to creatures. And in fact, that's part of the hope of the Gospel is that we can somehow have those communicated to us. But one of the things that comes out of this is also what I find so fascinating is that in the east, this point that the communicable also goes to one of the ways in which the Eastern fathers talk about how we're supposed to in an unfallen, uncorrupted world experience God's see God encounter God, no, God. Let's take our metal and rather than just it being generic, you know, metal rod or something like that. Let's say it's a branding iron, right? And so I heat it up, I take it over to a cow, I burn the cow, right? Well, is the cow. Like, how far does that fire feel from the cow? Right? Like, presumably, the fire feels pretty close. Yeah. And the reason is, because the metal is actually now a conduit, right? It's actually brought the nature of fire near to the cow, the cow is actually experiencing the fire now, how it's experiencing it is mediated, shaped by the metal, right, but it's still experiencing the fire. That's the nature of fire it is experiencing? Well, the the reason this is important is because in the eastern fathers, what they see is that us as icons of Gods angels, as it's tough to find passages where they actually call them icons, but following the rationale, it would seem they are icons of God, do. We actually exist in order to be conduits of God? Like you exist as an icon of God in order to participate in the attributes of God, just like the branding iron. And so the idea would be that an unfallen world a world as it's supposed to be, I don't find God in between you and me. I look at you as an energized icon of God, and I see God. So just like, yes, it would be shaped by you, just like my branding, iron shapes, how the cow experiences the fire, but it's still really experiencing the fire. And so in you, I'd be really experiencing God. It would really be God that I'm looking at that I'm hearing that I'm encountering. And, and the reason I think that's so fascinating is because in the West mediator, and I think it's probably because the legal connotations tended to think in terms of separation between right talk to my attorney, don't talk to me, right? That's how we tend to think about mediation or mediators in the West, but in the East mediators, like the angels and humans and things like that, they actually bring the subject near. So rather than standing between and being a hindrance to the thing, you actually bring the thing near, just like the branding iron mediates fire to the cow. So you, as an icon of God is meant to mediate God to other things in creation, the angels are made to mediate God, that the rest of creation. And so there's a real sense in which Providence as it's conceived by the Eastern fathers is actually that we should see an encounter of God in one another. And incidentally, this would explain why God seems very hidden. When all the conduits and all the icons refuse to cooperate, and we sort of shut that down. Yeah, God would seem very hidden and very absent. Yeah. Because you're supposed to be the means by which I encounter him. I'm supposed to be the means by which you encounter so we're at

Seth Price 1:09:09

both times, both the the person being branded and the branding iron at both times.

Nathan Jacobs 1:09:17

That's right. That's right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. We you have a direct Yes, that's right, where you're being energized by God. But then being energized. Hmm. I mean, so like in, in my tradition, we have elders and elders are not like people who sit on a board or something like that elders are actually its charismatic office, where these are usually like wonderworking living saints, right? People like Elijah who walk around on their PCs being one that you could look up. And we have an unbroken chain of these all throughout our history. But you listen to these stories, where you sit down with the elder and, you know, he tells you secret knowledge about yourself. He performs a miracle he does. If I'm having a cup with somebody like that, God doesn't seem very absent in that moment. In fact, he's feels very present. If an angel were to show up here and start talking to me, I presume God would not feel very APSE moment he would feel very present. But that's what's supposed to be normal. Right? Like that's what the norm is supposed to be. So there's a real sense in which the way in which we currently exist, where it's like, I can't see God, where is God? That's, that's not the way things are supposed to be.

Seth Price 1:10:30

Hmm, I'm gonna read, I'm gonna paraphrase what you just said, because it's what came into my mind. So the way we're supposed to be is the way that it is when the veil is torn, and we've intentionally then just erected new veils. Is that Is that fair?

Nathan Jacobs 1:10:44

That's yeah, I mean, I would say that's, that's kind of fair. I know. I'd say it's fair, and sort of the veil language doesn't it sort of loses the mediator language. But yeah, there's really supposed to be a sense in which, yes, like, just like people who saw Moses and his face is glowing with divine glory. And they're seeing the glory of God, right in Moses, his face, and they're freaked out. Because that's not normal. People don't do that. And he's gotta like, put availa right to use your veil language. Yeah. That would actually be the I mean, if you want to combine the two, right, that's kind of your veil language, right? Is that the way people saw Moses? That's what you should see all the time, throughout all of creation. But we're all walking around with veils and

Seth Price 1:11:29

Rita. Yeah. So you talked about the sub stack? Where do you want people to go to do whatever it is that they should be doing as it relates to the work that you're doing?

Nathan Jacobs 1:11:40

Oh, I don't know. I mean, if if, if somebody wants to know what I think about things, or they think any of the insights I can offer, or helpful, or whatever, I'd say just subscribe to substack. Right. So do I have to say it again? Or will

Seth Price 1:11:52

he put out a post or something? I'll post it? Yeah, absolutely.

Nathan Jacobs 1:11:55

So. So I mean, these letters were sometimes I think, when people are looking at them, they're, they're treating them. I'll hear people refer to these as articles. And it's like, these are not articles. These are literally I sit down to write an answer to a question going off the cuff to somebody. And my intent in the original letter is always to help the person, right. I don't know if I'm always helpful, but you know, that's the intent, at least help clear something else. Clear something out, bring clarity, bring insight. And so the hope is that, you know, there are other people who might benefit from those as well. And so I would say anybody who wants to see if it's beneficial, subscribe, right? If you want to support my work, you can be a paid subscriber. Can

Seth Price 1:12:42

you submit a question there? Is there like a button that says, shoot me a question?

Nathan Jacobs 1:12:47

I, there's not a button on there. But if you go to my website, there is a place where there's there's a contact form? And that's normally where people who know, send me questions. Yeah. And so people can do that. Now. I can't give it how long how long the responses are that I write usually takes a while for me to get back. I mean, sometimes I knock it out in a single sitting, you know, the next day. But I know I'm, I'm working my way through a couple of questions that I just got, yeah, that'll end up on the sub stack eventually. So people are free to write to me. And asked me a question. And they might, they might hear back unless, of course, I start. Thanks to us now get like that, well, I'm just picking which questions I like.

Seth Price 1:13:36

Well, I'm not I'm not intending to create problems. So Nathan, as always, man, I I really enjoy talking to you. Yeah, it's fun. Thank you. Thanks for humoring me as I ramble through a question. That's the downside of not scripting them. So? Well, fair enough. So good. Good, good.

Nathan Jacobs 1:13:59

Well, the only thing I would say is I feel like we sort of set up the problem of begotten not made. Yeah. And I never really said much about the answer. We could do horse riding. Could I try to summarize an answer in like, three minutes?

Seth Price 1:14:13

You can take longer than three if you need it. Sure. Yeah. I have five hours left on this memory card. So okay,

Nathan Jacobs 1:14:18

well, I don't have five hours left on the clock. But I mean, I think I think we sort of I think we established pretty clearly the whole like mutability and difference between God and creatures, and why that that issue is so significant. What I just say is that if you go if you know that if you hold on to that you recognize this sort of difference between the mutable right, this is what a creature is, right? It comes into being that means it's mutable, etc, etc. You look at that as entailing corruption. Now, you see this creaturely problem. And you see that the hope of, you know, creatures is to partake of this divine nature that's on the other side of that line. That's incorrect. ductable that's immortal, that's immutable, and so on. And that's why it's critical to affirm that the Son of God, if Christianity is really going to offer hope to people, then it's critical that the Son of God actually has that nature. Right that he's on that divine side of that line, I would say that all the different answers I work through in the article just by way of summary, they highlight all the sort of differences between God and creatures that inform the begotten, not made distinction. So what I go through in there, for example, is I numerate all some of the metaphysical entailments of being a creature. And then what I do is I talk about the negative, the apathetic descriptions of eternal generation that they offer, right? He is not material, he does not come into being, you know, he is, you know, not finite, etc, etc. And so there's all the negative things which are really just to say, it's not that. And then there's a few positive things that are set in there like that. It's eternal, like that it's analogous to a father giving his same nature to his son. And then, and then the sort of the third section, I think, is where I talk about a modal difference, which is the differences that they they take it to be sort of natural for the father to be the father, right? It's inconceivable that the Father would not be get the son, where as the same isn't true of making me, right, I could not exist, right, that's a sort of free choice on the part of God. And to say that they're denying free choice with regard to generation but but you know, I might not have existed same can't be said, for any members of the Trinity. And then, and conceptually, what that really looks like in their mind, is to say, one of the analogies that I think is just a really helpful sort of placeholder to hold on to is that they use the analogy of the sun, the SU n, right sun, not this being the Son of God, but the sun, like in the sky. And the idea is, well, let's, let's pretend one of the main problems that they see conceptually happening is that people like areas think in terms of causality and only one way, what scholastics would call per accident is causation, which is that it's sequential. This happened, then this happened, then this happened. Whereas per se, causation is coterminous, right? My cup is currently suspended on the desk, and the top of the desk is suspended by the legs, right? That's a cause effect relationship. And it's ongoing, right? They're they're coterminous with each other. And so their whole point is that when you're talking about beginning in a creaturely context, I beget a son, it's per accidents, right? I begin him, I can drop dead of a heart attack, my son still exists, right? But in the Trinity, when you're talking about the causal relations, they're there, per se. And so using the sun analogy, let's pretend for a minute that the sun always existed, right? The cosmos didn't come into being it's always been and always will be, etc, etc. Would it's like always exist? Sure. What is heat? Always is this. Sure. But would it's light? And is heat be causally dependent upon it on it on the sun? And the answer is yes. And so this is sort of a picture of this sort of eternal causation, an eternal, ongoing, unending causation, where all three things are present. But two of the things are dependent on one of the thing. Yeah, right. And that's, and that's really sort of the concept of beginning if you're going to take the very sort of most basic picture beginning and precession is the idea that the Father forever begets or generates the sun and forever out breeds respire. It's the spirit. And this is a unique mode of causation, because well, they all share a common nature, which is the divine nature, and that's what places them on that side of the dividing line, as opposed to us who come into being Yeah, right. Yeah. So what my best attempt to give a short summary of what the bottom line there is,

Seth Price 1:19:09

there is a better option. There actually two, we could do a part two, whenever the schedule is aligned, or people could subscribe to the substack. There is that but you gave him the part of the answer. Um,

Nathan Jacobs 1:19:21

two topics you wanted to talk about today, and one of them we haven't even mentioned. So we could do a part two, but reserve it for that one. Let's do it. What's your second top?

Seth Price 1:19:31

Yeah, that's a headline Hades, right?

Nathan Jacobs 1:19:33

Yeah, that's Yeah, yeah, Hades.

Seth Price 1:19:35

Yeah, I actually thought about that on Sunday. I sing at my church and one of the songs literally has a lyric that says keys to death and hades in his hands. That's all I thought about was after that, and then it's anyway, it's hard to anyway, doesn't matter. Nathan enjoyed it, man. Really much. Yeah.

Nathan Jacobs 1:19:51

Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Seth Price 1:20:19

Now, I haven't added it up. But there are hundreds of 1000s, if not millions of podcasts on the internet, and I am humbled that you continue to download this one. This is your first time here. Please know that there are transcripts of these shows. Not always in real time, but I do my best. And if you go back in the logs, you can find transcripts for pretty much any episode that you'd like the show is recorded and edited by me, but it is produced by the patron supporters of the show. That is one of the best, if not the best way that you can support the show. If you get anything at all out of these episodes, if you think on them, or if you you know, you're out and about and you tell your friends about it or Hey, mom, dad, brother, sister, friend, boss, Pastor, here's what I heard, what are your thoughts on that? If this is helping you in any way, and it is helping me consider supporting the show in that manner. It is extremely inexpensive, but collectively, it is so very much helpful for you. I pray that you are blessed. And you know that you're cherished and beloved. We'll talk soon