An Argument for Evidential Apologetics

Are you saying that someone a believer can go sleep with a prostitute and it wouldn't be right or wrong because he's not under the law

Anymore is so if he if he sleeps with a prostitute, but has faith in doing it, then it's okay

Yeah, it's okay Okay, I'm gonna ask this again because I want to make sure that I heard you correctly

Yeah Wow, okay

You're saying that as long as we have faith Whatever we do in faith is not sin

Yes To answer your questions your host from striving for eternity ministries

We are alive politics live here to answer your most Challenging questions that you have about God and the

Bible if you think we can't answer your most challenging questions Well, what you do is go to apologetics live .com

Scroll down to the stream yard icon a little duck icon there and click on that join us make sure you give permission to your browser to use the

Microphone and camera well you if not, you could just use the microphone if you don't want to be on camera and join us and Just remember one thing when you give me some really really really hard question and I go.

I don't know Just remember I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

I'm your host Andrew Rappaport I'm the executive director of striving fraternity and the Christian podcast community of which this well right now

We're doing a live stream, but this becomes a podcast and it is a proud member of the community so We are here tonight.

We're doing a series this month going through different approaches of apologetics,

I Don't have any of my co -hosts in yet, but I think some of them may be coming in later

But I do have a guest and he's going to talk about well evidential apologetics and So what we're gonna do is we're going to go through and look at different views.

We've already looked at the classical apologetic approach the biblical

Apology, I mean a pre -subpositional Apologetic approach. I was looking backstage to see if my

Guest here's was laughing at that one. But but it is the truth and then and then his view the

Am I tipping my hat folks? Yes And then at the end of the month for a spooky episode we will look at the cumulative approach to apologetics

I won't be here for that one. Drew will come back and fill in for me on that one. So let me bring in.

Mr. Daniel McAdams, sir. How are you? Doing great.

How are you today? I am better than I deserve You are with six twelve ministries why don't you introduce yourself to my audience because they probably never heard of you unless they listen to the

When we were on Adams podcast all talking about our different approaches They might have heard your voice there but in case they didn't why don't you introduce yourself let folks know a little bit about you and Your background how you know the short story how you became a

Christian what your ministry is Sounds good Well, good evening everybody,

I'm Daniel McAdams I am with 612 ministries, that's my personal apologetics ministry

I live in Jefferson City, Missouri and 612 ministries it deals with biblical inerrancy the paranormal occult and countercult

Apologetics a little bit about my background. I grew up in a Christian household But just out of high school

I got involved in the paranormal and walked away from the church at that time and Just dove with both feet into the paranormal and I tried to Call myself a

Christian while doing that But the further I got into the paranormal the further I walked away from what a

Christian is and after about a decade I found myself being a Christian by name only and more of a a new age

Buddhist somebody spiritualist And that's when

God called me out of the paranormal in 2019 opened my eyes to the truth behind that and Since then

I have been serving him in ministry doing apologetics talking about the truth behind the paranormal.

I also Serve in my church at Grace Community Church or Jefferson City I preach and teach there on occasion and help out in a bunch of different ways and I represent the evidential apologetics method and I'm excited to be here on the podcast with you guys and here with Andrew Yeah, so I mean maybe later on the show folks

If you want to ask questions about the paranormal and chasing ghosts and things like that Dan you may know a thing or two about that, but we want to make sure we get to the main topic.

So You know that that's important. So, you know, especially because you know,

I know he needs to be corrected. Oh, I'm sorry I preach too much is right.

Yes. I it's that's my presupposition coming out Yeah, we were telling lots of you know before actually even on on Adam's show we were doing a lot of jokes

About you know, you you're you and your evidence me my presupposition. So I'm sure we're gonna have a lot of fun tonight so Want to give a shout out here to Fatima who is saying

I've been learning biblical hermeneutics via SFE's that stands for striving fraternity Because I'm gonna debate

Andrew on cessationism. Ha ha ha well Fatima I will say

I don't think she's gonna debate me. But there is we we are getting closer to a date

Michael Brown and I have been spent some time talking this week. And so we're thinking early next year

What we're gonna do instead of a debate because as we started talking it was well we just we just had way more information that both of us want to try to tackle and a debate format isn't gonna

Really be allowed to cover it. There's gonna be time factors so what we're thinking of doing is

I'm gonna fly down to him and We're going to go into his the studios

They got set up there and do a long -form discussion like a three four hour discussion on cessationism continuation of gifts less

Less debate format because really all we're gonna do is remove the time in them and the moderator and I said to him

I said that's dangerous getting two Jewish guys in a room to try to stay on topic I said we're gonna have to have somebody in the audience going account how many rabbit trails we do

It's a Jewish thing this what we do so he laughed and it was like, yeah, I think you're gonna you're right so So now

I got to see what I see this one comment and I may be out of context but Jesse said

Wow, me too Daniel. Amen. So I don't know if that was don't know if he came out of the paranormal

As well or not. I mean, so Jesse's an evidentialist Came came out of that to like came out of evidential so and came to the truth.

Yeah, I like that point. Yes. All right All right. So this I'm assuming is someone you know

Why won't this pop up come on show the all right, let me see Buddhist This says oh he came out of Buddhist, okay

He Hugh Hugo Helm says Daniel McAdams is a faithful brother so Hugo now we have our differences and our debates on Facebook, but love you

Iron Iron, I like him because I see dot precept Hugo is my friend.

All right, so let's get into the discussion So first thing I'd like you to do for the audience we could is just give an overview of What is evidential apologetics?

Well, it's all in the name really it says it right there evidential apologetics is about using evidence evidences that Really challenge the unbeliever because all the evidence is on the the

Christian side There is nothing in all creation that Doesn't side with the believer and as evidential apologists

We can bear bring the entire weight of this evidence to bear on the unbelieving position and as I define evidential apologetics

Evidential apologetics on the foundation of God's Word brings the full weight of all the evidences of God's creation

Conscience and history to bear to prosecute the unbeliever and show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is absolutely true and that the unbeliever has no excuse to not believe all creation conscience and history

Loudly and boldly proclaim the existence and glories of God thus to deny him is absolute foolishness

Okay, so Let's start with some with Something that people will accuse

Evidentialists some evidentialists and for some it's actually true, but I don't think it will be for you

So do evidentialists ignore the Bible and just look at science?

Yeah That is that's a claim. I've gotten before that Evidentialists set the

Bible aside to try to find a neutral ground with an unbeliever but as a

Christian like I that's foolishness because the Bible is absolute truth and it's

Only from the Bible that we know that all of creation conscience and history is on our side so to put the

Bible to the side is putting aside the foundation of our faith and As an evidentialist,

I don't want to do that I want to stand upon the Bible because the Bible contains the gospel and the gospel is the power of God unto salvation

The evidence isn't going to save somebody a person's worldview is not going to save them

It's the gospel is going to save them So I as an evidentialist will stand upon the biblical gospel foundation to show that unbeliever that all the evidence

Supports me and does not support them that way We can get back to the Bible and get back to being able to have that gospel presentation

And there you go folks. You see that he's actually a presuppositional. There you go or positionals borrow from the evidential position for that I Mean it's there are and I think you're right that there are some people who will make the accusation

Because there are some people Well -known people Should we name names?

William Lane Craig very well known for his debating skills And his evidential apologetics who believes that he can argue to God without a

Bible and and so I'm Saying that say this is that's the sort of thing where as a presuppositionalist and even as you're hearing from Daniel We would we would be against So I'm bringing that up right in the beginning

Daniel because I want to get that out of the way as we further Discussion because some people will hear evidential

Apologetics and just go. Oh, you're like William Lane Craig You know

Frank Turek would make the same argument for years And then he comes out with a book stealing from God and and suddenly makes a presuppositional

Apologetic approach So but I do I have I don't have as much of an issue that and I do know someone a presuppositionalist who

Used to say evidence is sin. I would have an issue with that But from your perspective, what is the purpose of evidence?

Why? Why do you use evidence in your apologetic style? Well in Romans 1 verse 20

We are told that for since the creation of the world his invisible attributes his eternal power and divine nature

Has been clearly seen being understood through what has been made so that they that are unbelievers are without excuse

We're also told in my favorite verse in the Bible Psalm 19 1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the work of his hands

So the Bible already tells us that the evidence points to God so as an evidentialist

We just bring that to bear we we don't go outside of Scripture. We don't put Scripture to the side

We take what Scripture says points to God and we point people to God with that evidence so You're trying to and I want to make sure

I word things properly By the way for folks who don't watch this live and Get in the chat.

I mean the chats always fun I don't even know half time you guys are very chatty tonight because I'm seeing more comments or guys

Knowing that I can I can keep up with and I don't have my my co -hosts here to go through and star things for us so we bring things up, but I Do want to remind folks to share this

Since you're watching Live, please do us that favor. That's how others can know about it.

So We have a bunch of people from all literally all over the world

Watching so we do appreciate that. I do have to mention the one thing that's for my regular audience

Daniel I forgot to mention I have a thoroughly filled bookcase behind me

Or not Anything about that, but I know Yeah, if I show you there's the stacks are on the floor there for me to to ship out

Actually, if I turn like this, you can see stacks of books that are waiting to be shipped out And so I am selling my library if folks want to see what

I have just go to my Facebook My wall on Facebook. It's public so I don't even get there send me a

DM and But all those commentary sets that used to be here are now officially gone.

So I'll have to put something else there. So Yeah, that's why it looks so empty So Kathy's saying

Andrew selling his books Yep, and Kathy, I don't think you're all that far you you know, you can it's it's

October. It's Pastor Appreciation Day You can pick up a library for your pastor I Should we should mention that by the way it is

October is Pastor Appreciation Day. So I do hope that you are encouraging your pastor What I may actually do is put a put out

I have an episode on Encouraging your pastor And so that is one that maybe

I'll put on the on my rap report podcast. Maybe I'll drop that again Just so you guys could go and encourage your pastor this month so Let's get back to discussing evidential politics

You're using the evidence If I understood what you're saying

It's not that you're you're tossing the Bible and just looking at evidence as if evidence is superior to the

Bible It sounds like you're saying that You're trying to take the evidence of what you see in the world

Now, are you are you taking that evidence to try to convince someone that God exists that? God is real

Or are you trying to use that or let me ask it a different? How are you using that evidence? Depends on the context of the situation

Depending on how the person that I am interacting with Like what their their hiccup is what their their problem is or what they're challenging me on I'd like the

Bible doesn't try to prove the existence of God God exists and It's clear that he does exist.

So as an evidentialist, I don't see a reason to prove that he exists, but I always try to get back to the

Bible and In my approach because like I said earlier the Bible is what contains the gospel message and if somebody is against Christianity Then they are also going to be against the

Bible because you cannot separate the Bible from Christianity so a lot of the the issues that people have or they

Reject the Bible because they don't believe the Bible's true and most any argument that you have

Will boil down to how they view the Bible Sue. So with the evidence historical evidence

Supports the Bible the creation evidence supports the Bible conscience supports the

Bible and When you can get the non -believer To see that all the evidence is on the

Bible side And yes, that does sometimes involve critiquing their worldview doing the internal critique as Jason Lyle puts it

And that's the beauty of evidential apologetics is you're not just relying strictly on the evidence

But the evidence is what you primarily bring to bear and you can use that to critique somebody's worldview

You can't critique somebody's worldview without a reason why or evidence why that person's worldview is false so even presuppositionalism

Relies really really heavily on evidence as well so you can bring that evidence to bear to critique their worldview to show them where it's faulty and to show them how all the evidence that They think might support their side actually doesn't

But supports the Bible. So I mean you're sounding like a like a closet

Presuppositionalist I'm just saying so let me ask let me then ask you this. What is what would be your understanding of the differences between?

presuppositional apologetics and Evidential because what you just said there was exactly what a presuppositionalist would say

So, how do you what would you see and let me expand it. What would you see as the distinctions between?

evidential apologetics presuppositional projects and classical Apology, that's a really good question.

I think with Presuppositional apologetics it relies a whole lot more on logic and trying to have a logical critique and Dismantling of the other person's position that then brings in the evidence once they get that the unbeliever to Kind of start questioning their worldview

It's more worldview based that that argues the worldview before they move on to the evidence and then they'll bring the evidence into it after they established the impossibility of the

Contrary and that logical argument just the name disappeared from my head A lot of non -contradiction.

Yes, basically how like I see And the train of thought left the station without me and I need to get back to it

Maybe because you you're really a presuppositionalist and you're you're struggling Classic classical response.

Yeah. Well, what's the evidential one? The Presuppositionalism I see as relying a whole lot more on logic now falling back on logic because yes

Yeah, and I was gonna I shouldn't interrupt. So I'll wait. I'll wait with that. Go ahead Falling back on logic and using logic as a precondition of intelligibility

Which I see as ultimately the foundation of the presuppositional approach the precondition of Intel intelligibility

And I know that precept uses a lot of evidence I know some preceptors will like you say reject evidence of sin

But that's an extreme approach that you don't see very often So I I do understand that precept uses a lot of evidence as well in their position but I think the foundation of the precept argument is more logic and arguing the preconditions of intelligibility the evidentialist approach

Approach relies on the evidence and uses the evidence that is all around us to challenge the non -believer and to Show the validity of the scriptures and show how all the evidence is not in their favor but all the evidence is in our favor and then with classical apologetics like as Matt said when he was on the show and in the the roundtable we had it's a two -step approach

Where the first step seeks to establish the existence of God that they then move on to the evidential side of things to use the evidence to show the

The existence of God and how the evidence only supports the Christian theistic position

Okay, so now Were you able to watch last week with Dan Kraft at all?

I was not. Okay. I was watching a flu No, that's okay.

I just the reason I asked was You you heard my view. I wanted to see if you'd hear someone else's but it sounds like you know, one of the things that Dan and I both kind of critiqued is that there is some philosophy with some of the

Will be a good word. Maybe the the high -minded precept positionalists like the Bonson Bantill and And That group where there's a lot of philosophy in the way and and what you were really arguing against was that view

Which wouldn't be the view of priests up that that I would I mean I I believe in that but that's not how

I would argue I wouldn't go in and be arguing that way. I argue from the Bible And really would argue, you know, so I when you say

That It's depending on logic. Do you believe that evidential arguments don't depend on logic?

No, I just from an evidential side, it's not establishing the preconditions of intelligibility of which logic is

Essential for it's using the evidence that we see That we have all around us in creation history and conscience

Yeah, but most of the precepts pre suppers that I know do not

Don't get into discussing You know Neutrality or You know

The intelligibility, you know, just it's that is necessary to understand the what pre suppositional ism is

But it's not how we would approach a discussion If we're if we are using presuppositional apologetics

You know, I that's why I say I think you're almost a closet pre supper because We we would

I mean the presuppositional ism would just start with the fact that we we have the God in the Bible or as I say that to the two presuppositions that I hold to is

God exists he has spoken and So Those are things I'm not going to debate.

I'm not gonna I'm not gonna put those aside Or try to prove those things.

Those are the presuppositions. Those are the starting points Because as you said, I mean nothing else makes sense if we don't start there, so So, yeah,

I'm just saying that say Might it might be good to engage with more presuppositional is

I mean even you mentioned Jason Lyle Jason will When he's explaining for presuppositional apologetics is explain that but then what he'll end up doing is when he's actually evangelizing or Doing apologetics.

He's not getting into all that philosophy. That would be the difference with it

Um, all right And I do like I see in the comments Fatima said that evidential apologetic is more empirical in discussion

It is very much empirical and forensic in how it it approaches the the evidences and discussions with with the unbeliever

Yeah She says evidential apologetics is more empirical and discussion approaches while priests up in classical or more

Ontological and and I I argue this I know that you'll push back on me Daniel.

That's okay I argue this is that classical is more of a philosophical approach to apologetics evidential is generally a more scientific approach to apologetics and Presuppositional is more of a biblical approach meaning

Not saying it's like the others are not biblical saying that it is the one that you start with the Bible and And all your arguments are coming out of the

Bible not Not necessarily the world now as as we said, I use evidence all the time to show that the unbelievers worldview doesn't make sense

But I don't use that argue but right so what what is apologetics right it's a defense of the faith

So, I don't use the evidences to prove the faith is real I use the scripture I Can see evidences after someone saved but if I'm talking to an unbeliever

I still I argue from Scripture not from what I see in the world out I'll use the things in the world to show, you know, oh you believe that everything came from nothing really

You know, I just just had this discussion with a PhD physicist Not too long ago where he was like well

Andrew you have to understand that it really wasn't nothing That nothing was was something.

I said, what was the something? He's like, what's just nothing? And I felt like going you're you're a really really intelligent man.

Does that make sense to you? right So yeah, so let's deal with some some and I know there's more questions than I was able to Star but I'll try to get to it

So let me put this one up for you to respond to Jesse says evidentialists give the unbeliever an excuse

The the pre suppers shut the mouth How is an interesting way to print it

I do know that both evidential and classical often get that accusation that we give them an excuse not to believe but That's not the case.

We're not giving them an excuse not to believe even in presuppositional ism that the person that you're debating against can decide that they still feel confident in their worldview, even if it is absurd and we'll use that as an excuse that you're just trying to push your worldview on me that I disagree with and It still gives them an excuse somebody who doesn't want to believe it doesn't matter

How how hard you critique their worldview how much scripture you use how much evidence you bring how much philosophy you use behind it?

Somebody who just does not want to believe is gonna find any excuse that they can even well

It's just nothing and I'm gonna believe in nothing Rather than be held accountable to this

God that you want me to be held accountable to you so every single apologetic approach an

Unbeliever is always going to attempt to find a way out of it find an excuse not to believe and As far as shutting the mouth

We need to do that in love and evidence can do that too if somebody's Arguing incorrectly.

Well, there's no evidence that Jesus Existed. Well, they might be arguing from just a couple things that they heard that their their mom the dad say their college professor saying

Because they're not a Christian they go. Oh, there's no evidence that Jesus exists. Well as an evidentialist you can bring up not

You bring up the biblical account And you show from the biblical historical account that Jesus existed then you can move on to the early church fathers and show that their their

Testimony is consistent that there's a lot of Evidence that supports what the gospel says to from the

Christian side of faith, but then you can also bring attacks in from the unbelievers and the the secular world that also talk about Jesus existing and living alongside pilot and show that argument that Jesus doesn't exist is

Observed because the Bible proves it we have early church history that proves it and you even have secular history

That shows that Jesus exists. So the evidence when brought to bear properly can also shut the mouth of an unbeliever

Okay, so Jesse goes on to say Evidentialism treats the unbeliever as if he's a believer and then he realized he didn't finish he said oops

Because he wanted to finish he says uh, lest we'd be wise in our own eyes He goes

I did that wrong. So do you believe that evidentialism treats the the unbelievers if they're a believer?

No, I believe as an evidentialist I treat the person I'm talking to as somebody who is also made in the image of God and Being made in the image of God.

I know that person Has a conscience they do know right and wrong. Although they choose to suppress that as Being made in the image of God.

I do know that they understand at least a basic logic and reason Because they wouldn't be able to function in life without that and as being made in the image of God I know that God has put eternity in their hearts as well so I treat them as Somebody who is made in the image of God that I need to lovingly

Confront because that's a big step in apologetics that a lot of apologists fail to realize is that we have to do apologetics

With meekness and grace and in love you don't just bash the other person and tear them down We have to do it firstly from a position of love

But primarily from a position that exalts Christ We have to set Christ apart as Lord in our hearts before we can even engage in apologetics so from that point of view,

I Understand that every person is made in the image of God and thus They have a conscience.

They have eternity set in their hearts and they can Basically reason and use logic as well.

And thus I try to use the evidence to show that hey This evidence supports the

Bible this evidence Doesn't work for you this evidence all is showing that the

Bible is true and that you're a sinner who is stands in need of salvation and Jesus Christ And and so Jesse says

That is priest up Yeah, I mean this is the thing is so I I think that You you and I said this on Adam show

I think that Both you and Matt we're making what

I would argue is presuppositional arguments quite a bit right and so Matt not so much with the two -step approach, but when we get into it

They see so Fatima says right Daniel. It's not just shutting the mouth but softening the hard heart

The I guess the the thing I would say with that though, it's it's not us who softens the heart it's that's the work of God So that right.

This is this is and I think you said this it's to get to the gospel People when we think of Paul Jack's, I think the mistake is that some people think they got to figure out the right arguments and if they just give the good arguments people will get saved and I Do think there's a lot of people in the evidential camp

That do think that way not all which gets into a question. I want to ask you is what we

What would you see as the different kind of camps within? Evidential apologetics. I mean

I mentioned clearly there's a difference between you and William Lane Craig You're saved and he's not oh wait, did

I just get myself in trouble? This is a Calvinist. One of us is not Well, he's definitely that okay

So let's change that one of you is a Calvinist and one of the one of you in a reaction to Calvinism believes in determinism far more than any

Calvinist does Because that's what you know, he's a modalist and what modalism is is the idea they want to get away from Their view of urbanism of Calvinism.

So what do they do? They say well, we had our freewill choices and God just looks through the tunnel You know what everyone's choices we're gonna be and then he picks a world that gives him the greatest glory

But the question I always ask people is okay, but can we do anything other? Like can we do anything other than that in that world?

We're in that world. Can we now that God's chosen that one? Can can we do anything other than what our free will choices were and they'll always go well

No, then it's determined God picked it. We can't do anything else You could say it's free will but it's only free will if the other worlds are actually possible

But they're not so it's now determined So yep, absolutely so To get back to your question

Different camps you see I I do see the the purest camp Where you have the purest evidentialist that relies only on the evidence and they think that they can argue their way through any debate or through any unbelievers defense with just the evidence alone and I think that a lot of people who don't understand apologetics when they hear evidentialism think that that's just the only way to do evidential apologetics and I know that I'm not the the classical evidential apologist

I'm more of a More little Priest what

I'm looking for just disappeared. I'm unorthodox in my my evidential approach that some will accuse me of And I have to laugh because on the the roundtable that we had like I got accused of being

Classical I got accused of being precept. I got accused of being cumulative and I I just want to say

I think that's the beauty of evidential because as an evidentialist you can use the evidence of philosophy if you need to you can use the evidence of Logic you can use all these different evidences evidences aren't just a a scientific thing per se

It doesn't have to be like that Fossil behind me it you can use the philosophical evidence as well.

And you can use the biblical evidence most importantly and So I see you have the purest camp, which is just evidence evidence evidence

You have the more the softer camp like what I would consider myself that Starts with the evidence.

That's our foundational approach. That's our primary approach, but we will use like the presuppositional

Arguments as well to come alongside our approach. It's a a tool in the evidential toolkit rather than our foundational evidential apologetic method so I think that's why

I why you guys can think I'm a Preceptor because I do use that as a tool in my evidential toolkit using some of the presuppositional methods but Other than that,

I haven't really known many other evidential apologists. I know Gary Habermas is

I know your buddy Greg Koukl is that was a that was a pleasant surprise to learn the other week that he was a

Evidentialist as well. And then I know a handful of others. So Arguing and talking evidential methods isn't what

I usually do when I engage in apologetics. So Greg would be a classical

What do you Yeah, that's that's what he has told me in the past now Maybe he has changed but he would he would be classical, but he

I got names mixed up And he means he does lean Evidential times two. So yeah

So, so let me ask you what do you think what is the strength of The evidential apologetic approach

I Think that's what I have already Said and I'll reiterate it again.

It's the fact that creation declares the glory and existence of God and We are made in the image of God and thus all the evidence

We can bring to bear as a Christian to show the unbeliever that they are in need of salvation

So then what do you think from a internal critique of your own position? What would be the weaknesses of Evidential politics.

I think the weakness of evidential apologetics is that it can be easy to slip into relying on evidences and forgetting to get to the

Bible and the gospel and getting caught up in arguing the little fine details of a certain evidence or a certain certain view on some evidences and when you when you fall into that then you've lost the the end goal of apologetics and now you're focused on winning an argument and Convincing them that your view of this this evidence is correct and they're wrong and then you kind of spiral out of control

Yeah, I mean, so if we if we take a look at the different views though,

I Think that you're right when the in the purest sense, right the if someone's just arguing

Oh, well, let's just argue evidence and they forget about the gospel. I would argue

They really do an apologetics right because apologetics should be to get them to the gospel whatever apologetic

You're doing it should be to point them to Christ That's why it can come across as I'm presuppositional because I try to keep the

Bible first and foremost in my approach and first and foremost in how I approach somebody and engage in in Presenting the evidence and discussing evidence because that's the end goals to get them to the gospel.

It's yeah, I'm arguing evidence and I can argue for that the fossils with collagen can only be 10 ,000 to 100 ,000 years old at years old at most and thus the evidence doesn't support the evolutionary old earth

Position of millions of years. I can use the evidence of the resurrection and get lost in all the details sometimes but Ultimately You want to not get lost in the details

You don't want to get so caught up in just the evidences every single apologetic approach Needs to be founded on the gospel and on scripture because without it we wouldn't

Be here to have these discussions on the different apologetic methods Yeah, so let me let me get to some

Questions comments that people have here first of all, I gotta put this one up just as for fun

Fatima says I see evidential apologetics as a mean as a means to a precept end

Switch that around up precept as a means to an evidential end You know now

Fatima is So she's saying here. This is a great show so far because I'm seeing the side of evidentialists

Fatima is probably gonna you know at the end be you know agreeing with dr.

Don which it sounds like you probably were almost in the cumulative approach taking them all but all right, so Dennis here

Says watching a truly interesting and godly discussion. Thank you Andrew and Daniel Well Dennis if you think it's a good discussion do us a favor and share it so that others can watch and get fruit from It we hope as well

Okay, Fatima and I should give Fatima like an award somehow for like the most

Comments ever like she comments more than everyone and I think I know the reason It's because for most people least in the

East Coast of the United States It's almost nine o 'clock at night right now and for Fatima. It's nine o 'clock in the morning

She is energized had a nice go to sleep probably had a cup of coffee. And so That might be why she comments more than anybody

For her, you know, she's this is her way of getting ready for her Bible study so she says if evidence can be refuted can evidential apologetics potentially weaken the faith of Believers and and I'm glad she put this out because this was a question

I wanted to ask you an argument account against evidential apologetics is if I can win someone with evidence

Then I can pull them away with evidence and that is when you speak to professing atheists Usually what they're what they're arguing is why

I looked at the evidence Someone with more degrees or you know gave me better evidence.

You want an example that just go back to the episode we did with godless grandma who claimed to be a

Christian and doing all this stuff for the church and and then she says we just she just Read from more, you know more educated atheists and they had better answers and what we ended up seeing was she gave some of those answers and they were kind of wanting and Right, but that is a charge made against evidentialists

If you're using evidence to convince them then someone else can bring evidence to convince them the other way

You could almost also charge that against the precepts side too if you can critique somebody else's worldview and Let's try to establish the superiority of your own

What's not to say that they could? Also give a better argument for their side and I know preceptors will push back against that hard signal

That's because we stand on Scripture. Well, that's also the evidential approach to we stand on Scripture So it's their push back is against not us

It's push back against what the Bible is saying because the Bible declares that the evidence supports it

And I don't think that that necessarily weakens the faith of the believer I was uh

I'm actually kind of happy to see that question because I was hoping to bring up with you

Andrew what your thoughts are on the different apologetic methods and how they they can play into Equipping the believer and encouraging the believers in their faith.

I think evidential apologetics is Really really strong for teaching and discipling within the church

Especially new believers who have all these questions about the faith and who have heard these these challenges and arguments against the faith with all this evidence that supposedly

Contradicts Christianity or proves the Bible to be false. You can show especially new

Christians with evidential apologetics Just how wrong? the secular views are and how they're

Faulty in their viewpoints and how the evidence supports the Bible the evidence supports the faith and how we can stand confidently on the

Bible even if we don't have all the answers for all the the evidential arguments that can be brought against us and I know

You humorously said along the lines of you don't have to be super smart to be a priest after you just have to know

Some scripture don't have to know all the evidences. Well As an evidentialist, I don't know all the evidences either but I do know that I Don't know like you said at the beginning of the show is an acceptable answer you can say

I don't know but let me look into that and let me get back to you on that and More often than not the person that you're you're debating

They will be be okay and appreciate the fact that you're willing to look into a question that they have and get back with them and Yes, you might not know the answers to the evidences.

So you might have People who have 10 PhDs to the name Sevens PhD is like Bruce Banner that come up and Hulk smash you with all this supposed atheist evidence against the

Bible But you can just say hey, I don't have an answer to this, but I know my position is true

Let me get back to you. Let me look into this more. That gives me something to think about. Thank you for challenging

My position this is going to help me understand my position more. Let me get back to you on this

You can always use that if you don't have an answer right away To be able to strengthen your faith and get back to them to show them that hey

I might not have ever understood where you were coming from disproving this supposed evidence in the moment

But now I can show you how this evidence supports the Bible and how you're wrong Okay, so let me ask you this and I got someone backstage

I'm gonna bring in a moment but How would you answer? If people are if people are saying that They there's they don't have enough evidence to believe in God.

How how would you answer that? That's a good question

I haven't personally had to deal with that one yet Don't have enough evidence to believe in God well

You would fall back on scripture, which I know once again, here we go. Oh, he's a closet free supper but Apologetics is founded upon scripture.

So you can't jettison scripture with any apologetic approach without Jettison the foundation for doing apologetics in the first place you can go back and You can ask them.

Well, what sort of? Like my favorite response to that is very much a presuppositional response, though So in that position, yes,

I would I would pull out my apologetic to Reach into my apologetic toolkit and use a a presuppositional

Response to that to then be able to get back into discussing the evidences if somebody says there's not enough evidence for me to believe in God my response back to them is

Well, what evidence would it take for you to believe in him and if they respond just a second if they respond with anything other than nothing

Then they have just shown that they know God exists and that there is enough evidence for them to know

God exists They're just refusing to accept that evidence until God meets

Whatever requirement they have subjectively set for him I think so.

They have no escape from that people in the chat are liking this good to hear Daniel Coot Cook patrols,

I guess liking this because he's sound very Presuppositional. So so what if someone asks you they're there you're having a discussion and Instead of asking it that way they ask it this way.

Could you be wrong about what you what you believe? Could you be wrong about God? Existing How do you know that because the

Bible is true and Not just because the Bible says it's true, but because we have history on our side as well

Christianity is the only faith that is historically objectively verifiable and that's the beauty of Christianity See you should appeal to the evidence, but that's pretty stuff.

No, so let me let me do this Let me bring in our friend here Aaron Brewster In yet another location because he always likes to do other locations

But I think this time Aaron you're in a different location probably for a different reason

It could be you don't have a home there So let me do this as I bring you in and I'm gonna ask you for an update in a moment here but for folks that don't know

I've been trying to get the word out, but If you want to help support the

Brewsters, they they're there in North Carolina were affected by Hurricane Helen I'll let Aaron give you more details and an update of the situation, but Basically just the thumbnail you can read it.

We have a give send go that we're trying to raise support for him Give send go dot -com slash

SFE. That's give send go dot -com slash SFE All the donate all the money that is raised is is a donation it's tax -deductible

Because it is going to a 501c3 ministry of which you know, Aaron is part of so So there is that so Aaron this storm came hurricane came you you were trying to get the

The sump pumps working pumping out. You said a hundred gallons a minute until electricity went out

You tried putting the cars on the highest part of of the property that you could Tried moving everything as high as you could

I know that you your your dad could not be evacuated for health reasons and Your wife and daughter were evacuated.

You stayed behind tried to take care of the house to take care of your dad Also having your son in DC For folks who don't know and you didn't go into as much detail but you know

Aaron in in a heart's desire to be in full -time ministry and not be Distracted with secular work

You know for folks who don't know all the speakers are striving for none of us make a living off of what we do for striving fraternity because we try to minister to small churches that don't have the funds to bring out speakers and That is why we have to find other ways of income

Aaron has moved in with his his parents and His son was living in an

RV on the property. Well, the RV was filled with water. They're not designed for water coming in All their storage was gone

The HVAC was gone The cars are pretty much toast.

I know one was It was declared totaled. I think the other two there you're gonna try and get see if you can get repaired so I know as of at least the other night.

It was 30 degrees out and you still didn't have heat I don't know if you're if you have electricity now

But if you can give folks an update and before you do just remember folks if you want You can go to give send go comm

Slash SFE. It's on the screen. If you're if you're looking live, so Aaron give us an update if you could First of all,

I really appreciate Everyone who has already given or plans to give his

God for you and for doing that So, thank you for that that update yeah the the place where I've been

Appearing on this show for the past number of months was the RV Where my son's bedroom used to be but it it definitely

Is no more the water came in and filled it almost halfway up on the inside Obviously, you know, there's a lot of RV that's above the ground, but that it went above that and filled it up halfway

I mean I'm actually in my house by God's grace We do have electricity

But we do not have an HVAC system moment. There was talk that maybe the guys who are working on it

Could have gotten it done today But unfortunately, no, we have another 30 -some degree night with a frost warning and we don't have heat in the house as of yet But because I have electricity my wife has a heated blanket

Has my wife has her heated blanket all as well in the world We are slowly, you know, we

We've we've thrown out most of the stuff that needs to just be thrown out There's a lot of it that was so I used to joke that I wish my parents had a basement

Because then I could say that I'm 44 years old living in my parents basement But they don't they have a five -foot crawl space which is where the the bulk a lot of our storage was it was between the garage and the crawl space and I'm glad they didn't have a basement.

I'm glad it wasn't down there because the water Just at all. That's where the

HVAC, you know stuff was they got torn down and So we've gotten rid of the stuff it's really now a question of just every pooping

I'm sure if you know this if you've never gone through a flood before The floodwaters are never just floodwaters

Once it hits a certain level you're getting gas and oils from cars You have sewers backing up So we did have confirmed human sewage in the floodwaters where we were

Had five barrels five 50 -gallon drums of hydrochloric acid

Float into my yard now as far as we know The authority is seeing to say that the the drums didn't appear to have been leaking anything

But I think one of them may have because I were checking it when it first kind of landed and it was a lot heavier

Than it was weeks later when they finally came to pick it up. So It's been an environmental hazard and everything's covered in that thin layer of muck and goop

So that's kind of where we are a little bit of an update just kind of every day is me making a decision as to Whether or not

I should put my time toward ministry things or my time toward You know the next step in working through the process of getting us back to some sort of a normal life

With the added benefit that most of this week. I've been sick This week

I Just took a couple days and I was like God I'm gonna rest in you and I can't do this anymore

So I praise God that I'm feeling better. I'm not 100 % but I'm there that's kind of Where we are.

So thank you again everyone who thank you Andrew for putting this together Thank you. Everybody who has given toward the gifts and go

I just praise God for you guys It will be put to good use. I already have Andrew was able to send the money already you're gonna have

Some of our first payment expenses coming up here for the fixing of our H back and so on and so forth

So definitely it's a timing of this coming in is very valuable I will say as Andrew mentioned that because you are giving to a 501c3 that this is tax deductible

But I don't know Andrew. I know there are a lot of anonymous givers, which is fantastic.

That's that's great. But obviously I Perspective I don't have information on the anonymous givers.

So I We Yes driving attorney will we'll take care of that because the money's coming into striving for eternity so a picture

I put on screen the gifts and go In the center there what you're looking at is his mailbox

So later that evening was actually completely covered Yeah, so you get an idea

You can see the van parked across the street that is got water all the way up to the windows you see the house across the street that has water you can see up to the

Windows up the up the I don't know if that's a second floor or if that's a or if it's like a by level

Yeah, that's the first floor. So so you can see that so it's a ranch You know

This is this was what they were dealing with so if you guys can give we'd greatly appreciate it

You're you know, this is this is what we do as Christians is to help other Christians. So The government is

I mean, they're really coming in help filling out They're saying hey as long as you just had a hurricane and as long as you can go online and ask for a loan

I mean all the illegals got handouts, but Aaron can get a $750 loan from FEMA if he had electricity

To ask for the donation or ask for the loan in time They didn't we got our cell phone and our internet back

Yeah by going to your neighbors and getting star links So by the way, I will admit one of the things

I did do from from talking to you is I went out and bought a star link Just as a backup so that I have

For something like that. Yeah So, all right, so let's let's get back to some of the questions for you

Daniel that people came in and And I'm gonna say that I don't

I don't remember if cook patrol here has been here before but he says he goes I cannot prove

God the God of the Bible without the Bible Change my mind

So, can you change his mind? I'm not God Yeah, I can't work miracles

If I could work miracles like that and change his mind, he'd be evidentialist like me. I Think he'd be like you now now this next one.

I really find interesting. I hope he's still watching I if this is who I think it is

Brother ash ash is if if he is who I believe I believe this is the

Hebrew Israel later what we used to call the black Hebrew Israelites That came in the show many years ago to debate this

But I think and this is why I think it's so funny because if I have this person, right? He says best thing is to use the person's own argument that logic is better for edifying the one you are speaking with Which if this is who

I'm thinking that's classic The reason it's classic if we go back to when he came in That's what we did with him

We used his own argument and he got frustrated when he was arguing that the the blacks were the word

Israel because of one verse that just has that uses the word boats And he said boats are literal and so it's goes it talks about going back to Egypt and selling yourself to slaves

And so they say Egypt references slavery But the fact that they didn't sell themselves a slave everything was figurative except for the word boat

Huh? Then and then he was saying well, you know the way to interpret the Bible's you hear a little there a little so you just take

A little from here take a little from there So I started doing that with his arguments where you know, he was saying that the you know well, obviously

Jewish people must be black or Israelites must be black because their hairs described as as being like Brillo and having a brown a bronze

Tone and skin to which I read out of Mark About Jesus being whiter than you know being that when he at the

Transfiguration You know that he's a

You know that that Jesus was whiter than white so Okay, he's saying he's saying it must be speaking about someone else.

Okay Good. I wasn't sure it's someone else that went by the same the name Asher So, okay, forgive me forgive me on that if you're not that person

But that's what I said would have made it really hysterical if it was the same person because that's exactly what

I did with the Hebrew Israelite So, all right

Cook cook patrol is saying Between the two views priest up and evidentially says one is superior though.

Can we all admit it's pre sup? I Can presupposing a lot still

Supposing it's superior You still need evidence and presuppositional ism

That's that's a beauty beautiful thing of the evidence is that every single apologetic approach uses evidence

Well, but where the difference is is what do we rely on and this is why I think you're a closet presuppositions because I'm gonna fall back on the presuppositions.

God exists. He has spoken I'm not gonna fall back on the evidence. You're gonna fall back on the

Bible Which is why I believe that you're really a pre supper That's because the

Bible is objectively verifiable Can say that I appreciate

I understand where Daniel's coming because he views if I'm understanding correct Daniel You're viewing the

Bible as part of the evidence. Is that correct? Yes And it's the ultimate evidence.

I Took a similar approach. I was a dean of students at a school in the

Chicagoland area and we had a new family who was coming into the school and We had a lot of we were

Christian school, but we had a lot of unsaved Families put their kids into our school because of the high quality

Education we had we did have an open enrollment Lot of the grades so the family was coming in but mom and dad didn't speak very good

English and they brought an interpreter with them translator and We're telling about where family had stepped out and there's just the interpreter there and I asked her what she thought about I mean just as herself

She was doing a pretty faithful job interpreting I was asking her what she thought about what I was saying about all of our belief in the

Bible and so on and so forth and She clearly, you know wasn't buying it and one of the things that I encouraged her to do

Was that a an honest fair study and comparison of religion from the standpoint of Christians versus everybody else there are some key things that absolutely

Set apart the religion of Christianity that is so completely unique That none of the other ones have if nothing else that needs to plant a seed in your brain

And may cause you to wonder how could that be? So I know I would consider myself a presuppositional list

But I can appreciate the fact that when the Bible itself is the evidence The faith itself is the evidence that you are presenting why you could call yourself an evidentialist.

That's a really good way to put it Yeah, and and that's actually what I have in the back of my book.

That's over Adams or sorry, Daniel shoulder. There is left shoulder what do what do we what do they believe what

I ended up doing in there is putting a Chapter or an epilogue to the uniqueness Christianity explaining how it's unique from all the other religions

So cook cook cook patrol says thus says the Lord is

Way more powerful than look Don't you think that?

So he goes on both can work one is better so as We look at his his comment

You know, do you hold to a Do you hold personally to a view that you're gonna you're gonna submit to thus says the

Lord over let's look at evidence Submit to thus sayeth the

Lord over Yeah, what would be the ultimate authority there when we're doing apologetics to appeal to The ultimate authority is always the

Word of God, it's the ultimate truth. It's the only truth and that's part of the internal evidence that evidential apologists can bring to bear to is the internal testimony to The Bible that the

Bible itself presents as the Word of God But then instead of falling into what would be deemed as a circular reasoning approach

By just arguing from the Bible to prove the Bible You can also step beyond that to show that nothing in history has ever proved the

Bible false, too So thus sayeth the Lord when it says thus sayeth the Lord we need to listen because that's true

Yeah, but they put up Fatima's comment here. She says the Bible as an object of evidence gave me problems

I've been looking into textual criticism the family manuscripts problems with Codex B satyricus, etc

And this is what I hear a lot this was was godless grandma her thing was that she she started what she said looking at the evidence

From Bart Ehrman to prove that the Bible wasn't right Right, so she's looking at evidence

Look at the historical evidence of the manuscripts. Yeah, go ahead.

I have a question. I'm curious if if people from different theological persuasions in other areas

Might find that they have similarities on this question of apologetics. I'm just gonna throw this out there

Help me understand if maybe I'm right or wrong on this I can see somebody who definitely leans heavily into the

Sovereignty of God right man does not have a free will right leading heavily into the Reformed Side of things saying hey thus saith the

Lord is it right? Person's gonna submit to that that they're gonna submit because God's gonna do the work or they're not

Whereas potentially and Daniel, I'm not saying this is true of you I'm just trying to see if maybe that happens to be the case

I wonder if people who potentially lean a little bit more into the evidentiary approach

Might go on the other side. I'm not saying you're Arminian or anything like that, but that There you there might be a little bit more of a bigger focus on man's free will man's ability to to decide and and to to be able to I Don't want to make it sound like you don't believe in the sovereignty of God That's not it at all.

But just an appropriate doctrinal Idea of the scriptures where there's a little bit more to this that just gonna say where we say it's and not saving

We doesn't say if you know what I mean Is it possible that maybe people who hold to these different theological positions might find one or other of these apologetic models?

Fits better for them because it also complements their theological belief over here. Or do you think they have nothing to do with each other?

That's actually a really good question. I haven't thought too much into that honestly myself, but I could see what you're getting at there

I do know that especially in reform circles the reason presuppositional ism is so so dominant nowadays is that presupp was established in the early 20th century within the reformed

Calvinistic movement with an emphasis on the total depravity of man and But I think that like even evidentialists or classical like you see a history of classical apologists within the reformed tradition as well

RC Sproul John Gerstner and Evidentialist, I'm I I think that could fit in most any camp.

I think I Think you do have a point I think that some certain theological persuasions especially like in the charismatic circles that relies so much on experience might put a little bit more weight on an

Evidential type approach relying on the evidence of personal experience but I think that it really comes down to the person and the apologists themselves and What fits better with them and maybe their background that they came out of because for those who don't know

I used to be a paranormal investigator spent about 10 years of my life in paranormal investigation and the

Foundational approach to discussing the paranormal with people who don't believe in it is

Evidential it's presenting the evidence that you go out into the field and find that that proves ghosts exist

And then you you use that evidence to show people that hey, there is something out there That that gives validity to these paranormal occurrences and stories and experiences that people have so when

I got pulled out of that and We really became a Christian back in 2019 and started approaching apologetics

I realized that like we do live in a world where people want to want to see it to believe it

They want It's a show me the evidence type world that we live in especially on the street.

I can understand in academic circles where we're a classical or presuppositional approach might be better oriented to To the higher level of education, but on this street

I see a whole lot more people just they're working with weak evidence that they think supports their position and defeats the

Bible But when you actually show them the evidence and explain the evidence and Explain it from a biblical perspective and show how the

Bible supports the evidence the history supports the evidence It's like as Greg Coco will say it puts a rock in their shoe and that they're they have to start thinking about that They're forced to start

Looking at the Bible differently and and looking at it from a point that while all the evidence does prove

It's true. Well, if the evidence is proving its truth and what it says about Salvation has to be true.

And if that has to be true, then I need to get right with God so it the evidence really

I find is makes it easy to get back to that point of bringing the gospel message up because you

You address the weak evidence that they have be it just a couple things.

They've heard in college on Facebook read in a book or two maybe and You address that evidence and show how

That doesn't support their position and then you can bring the Bible into play because now they they have to they're forced to admit that the

Bible is true and the evidence supports the Bible and that they have to get right with God if they want to be able to have a

Right standing before him when they die Okay, so let me ask it this way Fatima said this much earlier

This comes in really well here now and I want to ask which one which one do you believe she said?

Quote evidence the this evidence supports the Bible unquote is evidentialism while quote the

Bible supports the evidence unquote is precept so My question you first do you agree with the assessment the evidence supports the

Bible being evidential approach? The Bible supports the evidence being the precept approach

Do you do you do you accept the terms she has given and then which one do you hold to I?

Would not necessarily make it a an either -or distinction Because like we've both talked about earlier like the gospel is the foundation

The Bible is the foundation and yes, we do show that the evidence does support the

Bible But we also show that the Bible supports the evidence. It's a two -way street No one apologetic method can lay claim

Exclusively to the Bible as the Bible only supports that apologetic method because apologetics is useless

It's pointless without the Bible and I think that's something that when you see these apologetic

Arguments and debates and discussions happen online. I think that's something that easily gets missed

I think the focus can get put too much on The evidence for the evidential side or too much on the philosophy for the vote for the classical side or too much on Well, the

Bible is the only thing for the precept side and it's almost as if precept has decided that they can lay

Exclusive claim to the Bible for their position. And yes, I do see that Fatima just said that earlier

I said the evidence supports the Bible. Well, that is because it's true The evidence does support the

Bible But I also said the Bible says that the evidence will support the

Bible Creation declares the glories of God in Psalm 19 1 and in Romans 1 20

It says that God's invisible attributes his power are displayed that all people are without excuse

So it goes both ways. You can't divorce the evidence and the Bible All right

At least one more comment here that I've starred and then I want I may end up shifting gears into some more fun entertaining things of your past Dennis Hilton says the lines can tend to blur between the different methods especially when one uses the many tools that are

Available to help one to see what the biblical gospel is and I think

Dennis what you're gonna see on the 31st and what I think Daniel really is making a pitch for Is probably the cumulative approach?

Which is an argument that dr. Williams will make saying that basically using all of them

And I think that's really probably realistically where you probably land more. So Daniel, right?

well, I think every apologist is in some sense a cumulative approach

Because if you're a purist in any form you kind of run into Some roadblocks at the extreme end of things to argue strictly from The precepts side the

Bible alone Well, you can end up getting into a vicious circular argument that will will push somebody away

And I've seen this happen on on social media interactions between preceptors and non -believers

They go a hundred plus comments back and forth Just trying to one -up the other person going my my worldview shows tells me that yours is wrong.

So you're wrong I'm right and that just goes back and forth for a hundred comments and gets nowhere But on the evidential side, yeah, you have that danger where you can get so much into the evidential the evidence that You forget about the

Bible and you're just arguing on evidence alone And next thing, you know You've lost your foundation that you're arguing from and on the classical side

You can get so much into trying to prove God exists from a philosophical sound standpoint that you could almost be

Accused of not believing he exists at at some point So I think there's a danger that each apologetic approach can can have if you take it to its extreme

So at some level all three approaches, I think you do have

You do have to be able to pull from each method sometimes That's that's the beauty of apologetics when you're going up against keyboard warriors online.

Of course, you're gonna have problems Question here

Andrew because so I have to admit right off the bat that I am NOT an expert in this field meaning

I have not taken the time to study in grand detail the different Apologetic approaches and whatnot.

I Understand in in generalities, and I know where I tend to fall

Dan is a presuppositional. It's correct Dan craft Dan craft.

Yes. I know you're saying no here Sorry, not Daniel. I'm sorry not Daniel. I was thinking

Dan But I keep saying no, I'm not I'm not gonna be that guy

No, so so, you know when you and I and Dan were in Arizona, right?

We had a really great couple of really great conversations, right? and there was one conversation in particular where he was helping me to tweak my understanding of The question about you know light from distant stars.

There's actually a term for that again I don't know the term if you know it shout it out And he was helping me to understand that a little bit better and the majority of that conversation

Was all evidence and it was it was also there was a lot of logical reasoning and things mixed into that now

He was not concerned that I was not understanding the preceptor's presuppositional views

I mean, he knew that I agreed on all that. So all of our time was spent on the events in that conversation

From my again my limited understanding you guys can both critique this observation

It seems to me that most now there there are some Presuppositionalist who really in a way can't be called apologists because really all they're doing is just quoting scripture

Never actually, I mean they're making an argument from God I guess from scripture, but not the way that we tend to think about apologetics being used

But I would say that you know Positionalist is going to use evidence at some point

And then as Daniel's saying, you know, if somebody is using Eventually, they are going they must if they are truly born again

They have to have recognized their presuppositions about God in the Bible And that is it fair to just make the observation that it's possible those two groups of individuals are going to be on that maybe not a spectrum, but an overlapping circles on a

Venn diagram or By making it too easy. No, I think I think I mean I This is and that's what in two weeks we'll talk about with the cumulative approach because I think that's really the the view of that I I would say

I think when when I'm evangelizing when I'm You know defending the faith to an unbeliever

I'm gonna use more of a presuppositional approach, but as a believer, I love evidence

I think evidence is great for the believer. It encourages their faith, but they're already a believer.

I Don't know how if Daniel would disagree with that. I Would agree with what you said?

I know you would choose a presuppositional approach on the street And I do also agree.

I think the evidential position is amazing for discipling and for helping to edify the believers in the church because like like a lot of Christians it like they don't understand that there are answers to the questions and challenges to Christianity that they've only heard the evolutionary arguments and they don't understand that the scientific geologic evidence actually supports the biblical position or So I think that the evidential position really helps solidify the foundation for Christians and I know that when

I've taught some apologetic Bible studies at my church that It's been a wonderful time and people have come away going well

I didn't think about it that way realized that there's that much historic evidence that really actually supports the

Bible as well but I also think that like an apologetic argument

Isn't going to change a person's heart only the gospel has that power to change a person's heart and I also think that a lot of Apologists can get stuck in that mindset that they have to convince that person to Christianity and I think that's where this sort of like argument amongst

Christian apologists comes from as to which Camp is the superior camp to win somebody to God?

Well, we all have to realize that it's not our job To make them believe we can't force somebody to believe

But it's our job To give them the gospel and to answer the questions and objections that they have about the gospel and from my approach

I will rely a lot more on the evidences to show that the Bible is true both external evidences and the internal biblical evidences without abandoning the

Bible as my foundation since that's what my faith is built upon and And Andrew over here he will more naturally dive into the presuppositional method in his approach and then other people who are classical like R .C.

Sproul word. He would go more into or Matt Marino since he was just out here a little while ago His primary approach would be would be a classical approach

We're arguing first for the existence of God to then establish that all the evidence points to God so I think it's it's not that one is

Superior to the others. It's more than how one Just like is more comfortable with in in taking that first step into engaging with the unbeliever yeah, you have to use

Matt because Today R .C. Sproul is a pre supper. So If anyone doesn't know

R .C. passed away, so he's in heaven has theologies corrected. So he's a pre supper now He saw the evidence and became a pre supper that sounds like he was the evidential approach worked there he became glorified

All right. So Jesse's been putting this it putting this in he goes. Let's try one more time

See if you really want to I'm just gonna say if you want to guarantee that we're gonna read your comment on YouTube There's a thing called super chat.

And if you give a super chat, you know You support the ministry and we'll definitely read the comment.

Just saying I saw I think his issue was he he tried to post a couple different times and didn't quite get all the comment in there

I think this was to say I think I finally got it in Well, yeah, he got it.

I thought there's one where he got it in. But anyway, he just says Don't answer fool according to his folly lest you be like him answer fool according to his folly

Lest he be wise in his own eyes. This is Proverbs 26 4 and 5 which Seem like they're contradicting one another

I Seem like because it seems like it's saying the same thing two different ways, but it's a matter of And an answer don't answer.

Yeah Jason Lyle teaches. Yeah Which is funny that you're mentioning

Jason law happened to be wearing a shirt for Biblical Science Institute tonight I was wondering about that, but I can't see it clearly enough on there.

Yeah Yeah, I did some I was working for Jason for a volunteering forum

And so I got this shirt and I had just pulled it out not resin. Which should I pulled? So I was like, okay. Hey, that's fine.

I will support Jason Lyle during the show Coop patrol says I guess it's important to be wise as serpents and Innocent doves as to know when you are answering a fool or not

And I think you know as Aaron Brewster said in comments, that's a good observation Well, let's

I mean, I think that this has been good for folks to get a really good understanding of Evidential apologetics apologetics what it is what the differences are

You know before we get into some I mean Halloween is coming up before we get into more ghostly topics

I Would just say I mean look There are certain topics that really get people excited they can you know be fully alert and pay attention, but if if not if Talking about ghosts are not something that interest you

Maybe what would is if you got yourself a good cup of coffee before we get into this Topic just go and get a coffee from a squirrely

Joe's coffee Aaron Brewster's favorite place to get coffee, even though he doesn't drink any

He likes to bring it And I would be there for it so if you go to striving for attorney org slash coffee

You are helping not only a Christian family to support themselves and to train their children on how to run a business

You are also getting yourself a great cup of coffee Remember use the promo code

SFE to get your 20 % off and please go to striving fraternity coffee

When you reorder so that they know that you heard about them from us. We would greatly appreciate it because that's how they keep supporting us and if if as We talk about ghosts if that's gonna put you to sleep.

Well, we got a solution for that, too Just go to my pillow calm and get yourself a nice pillow

Aaron brings his pillow when I preach I don't know if there's a correlation there. He says it's for his back

Yeah, I don't know but He was very Very proud to show me his my pillow when

I was getting ready to preach. So go to my pillow that I Just traveled to a conference and even though I didn't have to I took my my pillow with me

So I was like, I'm mad why sleep on hotel pillows when you've got something that amazing I will pack an extra suitcase if I need to to take that thing with me when

I was limited to 50 pounds to go to Israel and I'm saying limited because when

I travel I I'm usually traveling with two 70 -pound bags because one bag is all books.

The other bag is half books half clothes but When I went to Israel, we were limited we had to we

I think it may have been 40 pounds But my pillow was one of the things that made it on that trip.

I will be taking it to Ohio tomorrow So if you want to get yourself a great pillow or you know,

I have the robe I have slippers all kinds of things. Just go to my pillow commies promo code

SFE stands for striving for eternity That gets you not only they're great discounts, but lets them know that you

Found out about them through us so they'll continue to support us So let's get into more ghostly topics just for fun in the in the last half hour that we have left

This will be a spirited discussion Probably so you your background explain to folks who may have just come in shared

Came in late and and folks again if you wouldn't mind sharing this this out that would be a wonderful way of encouraging us and hopefully getting some others to to enjoy this

Let's see. Kathy is saying lol. You will be more awake if you go ghost hunting

What what exactly? So so explain before you you got saved you chased ghosts around or did look for the paranormal

What does that look like? What? I mean, I knew you're coming on So I just was like I I I just gotta understand because I don't

I don't know what that looks like Like what do you do all day you sit in an empty building like with with what to find a ghost?

Do you just go here? Daniel you need to understand Andrew has never watched a movie ever.

So he's never seen Ghostbusters He's never seen you can't use any of those illustrations. He won't understand.

I'm just want you to know that As surprising as it's gonna sound I've never seen the

Ghostbusters movies either You did get half of it right it is a lot of just sitting around in an empty room or an empty building using different devices like an audio recorder

Infrared camcorders or even just a regular camera other specialty devices like EMF meters

Sp7 spirit boxes REM pods and the like does I Put over three thousand dollars worth of money into investing in ghost hunting gear over the time that I did this so there's a lot that that goes into it, but most of the ghost hunting that happens is there's a lot more boring than then the shows or the videos on YouTube make it out to seem because we just try to show the

Exciting parts or we would show the exciting parts and that's what they try to show to you

Rather than showing you just sitting around in a room looking around like where's the ghost? So what are these different devices do like how do you how do you?

How is that? I mean, okay, like I know if you have a video recorder going and something moves

Okay, you're gonna say that's a ghost or something But These other devices you're mentioning how how do they pick up the paranormal what it what do they do?

So there's a lot of tools in the ghost hunting toolkit that we used to use the primary tool that ghost hunters will use is an audio recorder and The primary purpose of that is to capture what are called

EVPs that is short for electronic voice phenomena Those are voices that are recorded that just the recorder picks up and that you as the

Investigator don't usually hear it also picks up any noises that that uh, you do hear as well

But yes there's a lot of times actually where Well, you'll be sitting in a room and you might have three or four other people with you and it's quiet and you have the cameras to back this up and nobody's saying anything and you play back that audio and There's this other voice that comes through and you can go back to the cameras and look at that Like you can clearly see that nobody else said anything because none of the other audio devices that were going pick this up but only this one like audio recorder or one cameras microphone picked it up and that's probably the the one piece of evidence that most paranormal investigators will present to people to try to get the

Skeptic to be a believer Because those voices can't be explained but the voice is clearly recorded on the camera audio or on the the digital recorder that you're using and we captured quite a bit of EVPs and those actually it's pretty exciting to capture those and it's pretty pretty substantial evidence in the favor that there is something else out there because if There's a skeptic sitting there and they don't believe in this

You record a minute of audio ask a couple questions have a couple moments of silent play it back and you hear a voice come

Back in that silence. Well, there's really no explanation for why that voice is there when it shouldn't be there

So as a born -again believer now what to what do you attribute that phenomenon?

Oh I was gonna ask that He Recently had a debate and we'll have one coming up here pretty soon

But go ahead answer that and then I'll announce that later on about that debate. So I'll answer your question

Aaron and then after Andrew Promotes the next debate that's coming up.

I'll go into answering the question that you had about the other devices and their purposes but as a born -again believer

It's all demonic and the reason that only one device might pick up a voice and no others will

Well, I attribute that to a demon Speaking just quietly enough for a particular device to pick that up It would be like if we were all in a room together and there's a whole bunch of other people around and I wanted to Tell you something

Aaron that I didn't want anybody else to hear I would just come over to you and speak really really softly just loud enough for you to hear it and Nobody else is gonna hear what

I tell you, but you'll hear it You'll pick it up and I I believe that that's how demons will operate too with these

EVPs sometimes they'll they'll speak audibly enough that everybody in the room will will hear a voice and Sometimes I believe they'll speak just loud enough to get that one

That one device to pick up that their voice and that audio which then

Gets people wanting more because it's like how did that one device just capture that piece of evidence? so then people get curious and they start looking into this more and really

All the demons do in paranormal investigations and ghost hunting is they give you just enough evidence just enough experiences

Just enough to not really answer the questions you have But just enough to keep you wanting more to keep you going back to keep you interested in the paranormal

So when people play the the Ouija board, what do you think that is I Think that's just another way to communicate with With the spirit world just like digital recorders, or I don't think there's anything inherently

Evil about the Ouija board in and of itself I actually use those a couple times and went to one place where I had a possession like experience and Never had anything happen with the

Ouija board But we would capture lots of evidence on camera on and on audio recorders, too

So it's really just another tool that people try to use to communicate with with the beyond Yes, I remember having an experience in college where they were doing a

Ouija board in one of the dorm rooms in a suite and I walked in and Soon as I walked in literally the board flew across the room against the wall

And I just assumed that one of them like pushed it, but they told me to leave They wouldn't they didn't they couldn't get any movement or any activity as long as I was in the room.

I Guess as a Christian, I'm glad I never took you ghost hunting That would have been the most boring

TV show ever yeah, really so Jesse's asking me to respond to this

Some comments, I guess this is the thing folks just so you realize it is hard especially when

I'm the only this is why I usually like to have a co -host when what drew is usually doing is is marking all of the

Comments so that I can just see the marked comments and because I miss all the comments as I'm trying to talk but I guess this person may be

Roman Catholic and so By honest he was saying earlier that Mary didn't sin and so on and so forth.

Yeah. Oh, is that okay? Because I knew he said wash your mouth out when when someone said that Mary was a sinner which she was

But all saints hear prayer through God the only omniscient one well if all the

Saints hear all the prayers. Guess what? God's not the only omniscient one bionic

All the saints are too So would Mary Mary would have to be Omniscient to hear all the prairie that or she's on the present

To be able to hear all the prayers So based off of the interactions

I was having with him and seeing in the in the comments He definitely would probably fall under a little bit more a classical approach because he was just philosophizing trying to make logical

Logical conclusions, but every time someone said well, what does the Bible say? What does the Bible say?

He had no answer to that Because that's a precept approach But bionic here be my challenge to you.

Anyone is allowed to come on in you see a thing scrolling at the bottom Join on Thursday nights to ask your questions or offer

Challenges you just go to apologetics live .com. So if you go there

You can come in any week and ask questions and challenge us and I'd be happy to have a discussion with you about Roman Catholicism And why it will lead you to hell

Not saying that there aren't Roman Catholics who will be in heaven. I'm saying that you can't believe in Orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine and go to heaven

Because it's what the it's actually what the You know, we would have in the in their own documentation

Because you know, there's there's different religions bionic that are going to lead people astray

There's different religions that you get we have to know what's the true religion and what's a false religion that becomes this, you know an essential thing we have to be able to do because if we're if we're believing in a false religion if we're believing in something that is

Is not biblical it's going to lead us down a wrong path Okay Let me give it for instance what a religion believes

I'm gonna read from a document that is seen as an authorized document from this religion and You know bionic maybe you could you could listen and bionic what

I'm gonna do is I'm gonna read it I'm gonna ask you to tell me which religion you think this is and and that way

So I'll pause after a bit and let you Let you respond because you know, this is the difference of different religions.

So it says this The word became flesh to make us quote partakers of the divine nature unquote for this is why the word became man and The Son of God became the

Son of Man so that man by entering into Communion with the word and thus receiving divine sonship

Might become a son of God For the

Son of God became man so that we might become

God The only begotten Son wanting to make us sharers in his divinity

Assumed our nature So that he made man might make men gods

Anyone I'll let everyone try to answer. I mean what religion is that that would teach such a thing?

So we'll give some folks time to in the chat to to give their answers Rob was the first one to give a guess

I'm waiting to see some others. I think I think you know, we'll see because they're this is

I'll tell you where we first see this teaching though That I just read the first time we see this is in a book of the

Bible called Genesis chapter 3 in Genesis chapter 3 what we see is

If I can get there so I could read it says now the serpent was more crafty than any of the beasts of the field which the

Lord had made and He said to the woman Indeed has God said to you shall not eat from any tree of the garden now notice what

Satan does Satan turns and where God said you can eat from all the trees except one

Satan says no. No can he said you can't eat from any and so what does the woman do the woman says to serpent?

The woman says to serpent from the fruit of the trees in the garden. We may eat. Well, that's true

But the fruit of the tree in which is the middle of the garden God said you should not eat it or touch it Lest you die now

We don't know whether Adam told her not to touch it or whether she thought whether she was adding that in But what does the serpent say the serpent said the woman said to the woman?

You surely will not die for God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good from evil and So as we're looking

Rob has said Mormons Melissa has says

Mormons Fatima has said it sounds like Mormons Bionic said

You don't have the Holy Spirit then Kathy. Well, what did Kathy say Kathy said? We don't participate.

We don't participate with God. There is there is a creator and Creation distinction and he said then you don't know the spirit

Kathy. Well Fatima is the one to get it, right? She said oh, no, that's actually

Catholic. That is right That is from the Catholic Catechism paragraph 460

That's what I just read from so bionic your

Catholic Church teaches the very words of Satan I'm sorry, if you don't like it, but all

I did was read what your church has said and what the Bible has said That is

Roman Catholic He's saying he's not Catholic dummy. Okay, then what are you?

Be curious to know this is where it'd be better if you come in so we could have good discussions Fatima what other what other belief systems say that Mary didn't sin

Yeah He says I'm not orthodox. I Don't think so Okay Sebastian is asking.

Can you repeat what church teaches? That was the so what I read was from the

Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Catechism Paragraph 460 now, this is a catechism is

Was blessed and approved by Pope Pope Pope John Paul the second

Okay, so that is what the Catholic Church teaches that we can become God Just like the

Mormons do Just like Satan does If he is, you know, he hasn't said what he is

Kathy saying maybe Eastern Orthodox. I don't know what other religion Would hold that Mary has divine like qualities.

I mean Mary herself claims she sinned and so now you end up having to deal with you know, which is right the

Bible or You know or your belief system Let's see.

I think it's in in John 1 let's see if I could find it quickly where Where is it?

Where Mary meets her cousin Elizabeth? Now that's in maybe it's in Matthew.

I'll go with anyone that can give me a suggestion where that is Now Sebastian is saying here are you aware?

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant Mary and Mary Magdalene are two separate people

Yes, Mary Mary the mother of Jesus is Separate from Mary Magdalene Separate from Mary who there's another

Mary who is at there's three Mary's mentioned at the cross that saw

Jesus So he says Bionic says you don't know a lot about religion

Isn't that right? Hmm that's weird. I wrote a book on world religions

So, yeah, I guess I don't know too much I Think you were talking about Luke chapter one.

Is that where I yeah, okay. I originally went to see Elizabeth yeah

That's what I was looking for No, I was just pointing to a

Andrews book that he wrote on world religions, yeah It displayed right there

Which is very nice, I appreciate him doing the the the product displacement product placement

I should say but when when When Mary comes to Elizabeth, she sees herself as a sinner.

She'd Mary is not up. Sorry Mary's to say

Mary is the Ark of the Covenant Sebastian I would love to have you come in and we could talk about it

Oh, oh look, I love this argument. This is the this is the self -righteous argument I'm out of patience for this blasphemy.

May your soul find peace and blessed through repentance In other words, you can't defend what you're claiming.

You just you said that I wouldn't know religions You won't even tell us what you believe What you hiding sir, or ma 'am?

Just saying all right so the the statement about Mary being the Ark of the

New Covenant that I mean that clearly at absolute best would reveal a

Spiritualizing hermeneutic that allows us to jump over some pretty massive hurdles where we're utilizing, you know

Ideas like, you know the Ark right which interesting enough the Bible actually refers to Baptism compares baptism in a more of an arc sense than anything else

But then because she cared, I mean, there's a lot of spiritualizing and jumping but there's no scripture whatsoever

That would actually support that and so we're leaning more on man's ability To play fast and loose with the scriptures and the ideas contained therein and we are what the actual text says

Yeah, and so let me let me read what the Bible says about the New Covenant Okay, and I just I find this

I find it interesting I heard this argument recently Mary being the the new You know the the

New Covenant being the Ark Coming from a Jewish perspective Yet, that's nothing what the

New Covenant that we would look forward to is Jeremiah 31 31 and following but their days are coming declares the

Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah Not like the covenant that I made with their forefathers in the day that I took them from the hand

To bring them out of the land of Egypt My covenant which they broke

Although I was a husband to them declares the Lord But this is the covenant which I will make at the house of Israel after those days declares the

Lord I will put my law within them and On their hearts and I will write it and I will be their

God and they shall be my people I will not teach them again Each man his neighbor and each man his brother

Know the Lord for they will all know me from the least to the greatest declares the

Lord for I will Forgive their iniquity and their sin and will remember it no more

Thus says the Lord whoever gives the Sun for day by night and fix and the fixed order of the moon and the stars by For light by night who stirs up the sea so that the waves will roar the

Lord of hosts is his name It is thick if this fixed order

Departs from me declares the Lord then the offspring of Israel will also cease from being a nation

Before me forever thus says the Lord if the heavens above Can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched

Out below then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all

They have done declares the Lord behold the days are coming declares the Lord when the city will be rebuilt

For the Lord from the Tower of Hanel to the corner gate

Okay, and so so what you end up seeing here is quite clearly and and Sebastian is in here

I hate the fact that we have nine minutes left in the show and seeing here is I'm gonna put you backstage.

So you got to mute your your computer there. You're you're still playing the audio bringing

Sebastian in Can you can you mute that Sebastian and Then we'll try to bring you in again

All right, Sebastian. Can you hear us? Yeah Yes, we hear you

Okay, so deep were you able to hear the passage that I read No, I was

Okay Yeah, so so what I read to you is out of Jeremiah 31 31 and following which which states that the

New Covenant Right. This is God speaking he says in 31 behold days are coming declares the

Lord when I will make for you a new Covenant with the house of Israel the house of Judah Okay, so first off he's being clear on who this new covenant is for It's for the house of Israel the house of Judah.

Do you know who the house of Israel house of Judah are? Who is that It's the people of the

Old Testament Well, not the people it's it's the northern and southern tribes that the twelve tribes of Israel So he's he says in verse 31 32 not like the covenant that made with their fathers

What was the covenant with their fathers the covenant with fathers was a written word of law? That was provided through priests and the whole idea of the covenant is that he says he brings him out of Egypt He says in verse 33, but this covenant is gonna be different how it says but this covenant

Which I will make for the house of Israel in those days declares the Lord. I will put my law within them

On their hearts. I will write it and I will be their

God. They shall be my people They will not teach again each man to his neighbor and each man to his brother saying know the

Lord For they will know all they will all know me from the least to the greatest.

So the the idea of The the new covenant is that the

Holy Spirit would indwell us We would no longer need a priesthood Because we would have

God within us to to help us with his understand his word Okay.

So how did that relate to my point that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant?

because the point that I'm trying to make here is that There are parallels between the Old and the

New Testament And I think anyone who studied the full Bible both the Old and New Testament would agree

That the parallels between the New and Old Testament are undeniable there's 12 tribes of Israel There's 12 apostles

Etc there's a lot more examples of these sort of parallels, but the undeniable fact is that The New Testament is the

Greater Testament. It's the greater church but the point I'm making here is that if you read the parallels between Mary and the

Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament. They're they're They're undeniable both held the

Word of God Just for one if you look at Deuteronomy 10 5.

Hold on. Hold on. Did they hold the Word of God in the same way? Well, no,

Mary held His word of God made flesh. That's even greater which which

No, she's so I just want to make sure we work through this because we don't have a lot of time so she held

God in her womb not the Word of God the Bible, right? Jesus Christ is the

Word of God made flesh you you agree with that, right? I Mean the Gospel of John begins with that and what is mean what by saying?

He's the Word of God What is it? What is it speaking to is it speaking to the Bible the same way that we have the

Ten Commandments? That was a physical Writing of the law because what I just read to you was to say that the

New Covenant was not that so if that's gonna Be if you're gonna make that argument, right then the there

Jeremiah Promises the New Covenant would be different Okay, but you agree that Jesus Christ is the

Word of God made flesh or not That's it's well, it says the word became flesh

Yes, Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh why you keep adding that word of God that's what the

Bible says Where does it say that in the prologue of the Gospel of John?

Okay, let's read that John In the beginning was the Word We would it is word

Yes, word of God. It's word in the beginning was the Word and the Word was

God and The the Word was with God and the Word was God how come you're adding to the

Bible to make your argument It's not it's not adding it. Jesus. Jesus is the

Word and Jesus is God. Okay, so he's not the God He's the

Word okay, but the

Parallel is still significant Even with this sort of semantic. So let me let me let me show you some so you believe that just because there's coincidence

You say it's undeniable It's not a coincidence. This is a theme this I've only brought forth one piece of evidence here

There's a lot more. Okay, but you know, there's you know that there was about 90 years before the

Titanic There was a book written about the Great Titan This great ship that was sailing across the ocean.

It struck a iceberg and sank and two -thirds of people died

There's there's similarity therefore that that fictional tale must be true You see what you're doing is you can always start with the conclusion and make the

Bible say anything you want But what you're not doing and you have a confirmation bias because I read to you out of Jeremiah which clearly says what the

New Covenant is which denies what you claim it is and You're just ignoring that because it doesn't fit your preconceived idea, right?

Okay, if you want to throw one throw around the term confirmation bias, I mean, we're both starting from different places

So obviously we're gonna have nice. Yeah, I'm starting from the Bible My whole argument is predicated on the

Bible Okay, but easy may I ask a question here? Yeah, when

I work down a path first, so the issue is how we interpret Right, yeah, and I'm interpreting the

Bible the way that Christians have always interpreted it you're not you're ah The no, what do you mean how

Christians have always? Interpreted it. Well, so for example If you are a

Protestant then you obviously don't hold the Catholic position The teaching of Mary but the teaching of Mary for example goes all the way back to the third and fourth century

The people who canonized the books of the Bible themselves Yeah, believes that parallel what the

Catholic Church believes today and your your beliefs don't parallel that so yes I'm going back before that.

I'm Jewish. I'm a Levite I'm interpreting the Old Testament the way it was meant to be interpreted by the people the explicitly says

That what the New Covenant is it's not saying that there's gonna be a Mary It says that the

New Covenant is that we're no longer going to say there was gonna be 12 apostles either So what's your point?

Well, the point is that the the it tells us explicitly what the what the

New Covenant is in Both Ezekiel and in Jeremiah the New Covenant is is the fact that the

Holy Spirit will indwell us That is what the Bible says the New Covenant is now you're taking and saying no, it's not

Mary No, the New Covenant is God's new church that was made very clear in in what passage

Show me because I just read to you right out of Jeremiah 31 that said what the

New Covenant is well Let me let me at least just finish my point about Mary because I only got to pretty much cite one piece of evidence but there's actually a lot more than just that so For example, if you look in Exodus 40 34 35 it says that the ark was overshadowed by the power and presence of God and in Luke 1 35

Mary was Shadowed by the power and presence of the Most High. Okay.

So here's the thing. We're not gonna do we're not gonna jump to one passage Take that passage out of its context find something that matches a similar phrase and say that they're the same thing

You can't do that. That's not how you interpret anything That's actually exactly how parallels are made between these are types.

Are you familiar with what a type is? Yeah so a type and a parallel are not the same thing but what a type is a type is something that points to Christ and The only types we know of is where it says such as where Jesus will say that when when

Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights. So the Son of Man, that's a type

How do we know okay, but you would agree that like Moses is a type of Jesus, right? And Joseph were types him or a type of Jesus.

I wouldn't say Joseph is because there's no passage that says that so Yeah, there's no passage in the

Bible that says wasn't he called the Savior of the world? Who Jesus or Joseph Joseph?

No, I believe he was I'll have to go back and check. Yeah they may

I just Go ahead. Yeah, I'm just gonna What in these conversations

Sebastian? As was already mentioned this comes down to a question of your hermeneutic how you approach the interpretation of the scripture

Every single Theological belief rests in a hermeneutic and one of the difficulties

I have with what you're presenting is the fact that you have to you have to Take the

Bible says this and the Bible says this and then you have to say therefore this what

I'm looking for when I come to the scriptures because here's the thing I We talked about people have mentioned

Mormonism earlier, right? I mean isn't got to the exact same place in many of the exact same ways

The Bible says this and the Bible says this therefore we can extrapolate out this every false religion That has any root whatsoever in the scriptures has done the same thing.

So I think it's very dangerous When any person makes that claim because because the

Bible doesn't actually say it It's what we're extrapolating out. There's danger It's what early

Christians believed Okay, but that's fine early Christians did believe a lot of ridiculous things if we can be honest with each other

I mean, we know that early Christians did expose did express things that were untrue Okay I'm trying to make the

Bible doesn't actually say that Mary was the art of the New Covenant the Bible says from what you're arguing

But are true nonetheless I mean the Trinity is not stated explicitly, but we all would agree that the

Trinity refers to the Father Son and Holy Spirit, right? Okay, but the teaching of the Bible actually does that yeah

The Bible actually said that God the Father was God and Jesus was God Holy Spirit was God the word Trinity is not there

But all the concepts are there in Scripture, but the Bible doesn't actually say Mary was the ark of the

New Covenant There just so happens if I'm understanding you correctly to be What appear to be similarities between the ark of the

Covenant and Mary but the Bible doesn't say that she is that? Yeah, it does though and and I again

I can go through through more examples but that's the problem with with your comment regarding the hermeneutics is that my

Understanding of the Bible doesn't come strictly from the Bible in my own Interpretation of the Bible as it does with the new fake religions that came from Martin Luther and thereafter it comes from the

Interpretation of the people who even canonized the Bible themselves if you studied what the

People who canonized the books of the Bible themselves believe their beliefs were very similar to what?

Roman Catholics believe today they believed in a Lot of the same things that the church believes around the

Trinity they believe in that's into a priest Yeah, so my belief so, you know the moment you say that you've lost me because I don't necessarily respect those guys because they're just they were sinners and they come to wrong conclusions like I do so I mean

They had a dog success they were receiving their beliefs and traditions

Sebastian from the Apostles and their successors themselves So Ashton, what are you even talking about Sebastian?

I want to ask you a question. Sure. Go ahead. What do you believe is the authority? What should be our authority for Christian life?

Well, it's both tradition and scripture tradition it can we interpret the

Bible without tradition and the magisterium No, because tradition is what gave us the

Bible. Okay. Are you aware of that? Are you aware that as oral tradition that? Determined help us determine which books were to be included a part of the part of the

Bible because we knew we knew what those Books were before that before the count because of the oral tradition that That Okay, so you believe we need

I just want to reiterate we need tradition and the magisterium to interpret the Bible Is that correct?

Yes, you cannot interpret the Bible without having Tradition, okay.

So therefore the Bible is not your authority the missus No, because you can't read you cannot understand the

Bible without the magisterium and the tradition You just said that therefore. It's not the

Bible. That's your authority. It's your church That's your authority and that's where we differ and that's what the

Bible says is your authority That's the Bible literally says that the church is the pillar of truth.

This is Timothy 315. You're taking that out of context But okay, so how do you know? How do you know

I'm taking it? That's what the early Christians believe. No, it is it you keep saying the early you keep saying the early church

So here's an interesting fact of history Do you know that the Catholic Church has their own version of the early church fathers, do you know that No, what do you mean by that?

So we have the early church fathers. We have the writings of some of the early church fathers The Catholic Church has their own version of it

Which has a whole bunch of things taken out that they just didn't like because it didn't teach what they wanted So, let me ask you what the

Bible is Don't you think that there were other books that were no use in public worship that were yes

They were there were many other books Bible. No No, no What I'm saying is that there were other books that were included in public worship in the early

Christian communities that were eventually excluded Do you know when the books of the Bible were officially canonized?

Do you know when the Bible was even called the Bible? Yeah, I can I can answer that when it was when it was spoken when it was written

And that's what that's why you can call Paul's writing. Sure. Then what how did Peter know that Paul's writing was scripture?

Are you aware that the answer the question answer the question don't dodge it answer the question

How did Peter who wrote in inspired scripture? He called what

Paul wrote? Scripture Peter what did what did Peter write?

he referred to Paul as Pull it up. What did

Peter write? He didn't write a gospel Peter didn't write a gospel. No, there was a book called the

Gospel of Peter But that was eventually excluded because it wasn't canonical. There was no verification that Peter wrote it

So so you don't believe in the books of first and second Peter which are in your Catholic Bible Those weren't written by Peter.

Those are written by Timothy Wow Peter written by Timothy.

Yeah, that's a new one. It literally says Peter We're talking about the gospel books here

Peter didn't write Gospels, so you don't even do you believe that all scriptures God's Word I Believe that the gospel message is only contained in the books of the gospel.

Okay, guys No, I don't want to not believe that the rest of the

New Testament is God's Word Yeah, of course, I believe that as well, but you can receive the gospel message in the books of the gospel

Okay, yes, but then to say that you're rejecting what Peter said about Paul saying about Paul's writings being scripture you're rejecting the inspiration

I don't want us all jumping on him and and because it's not fair to be three -on -one. So it's so I'm gonna read for you from from second

Peter 315. Do you have a Bible handy by chance? Yeah, do you have that in your

Bible Well, yeah, I believe I You have second Okay, and so you know

Let's just take a look. And so I'm gonna read second Peter 1 1 just so we have some to understand it says

Simon Peter a bondservant of a Slave and apostle of Jesus Christ.

Wait, what are you reading from? I'm reading second Peter Okay, one one so that you know, it's not

Timothy unless God is a liar if this says Simon Peter a slave and Apostle of Jesus Christ to those who receive the faith.

Okay, so that's Peter writing What is he right in? second

Peter 315 And I'm gonna back up to 14 so we get the context but 15 is the point it says therefore beloved

Since you look for the for the things to be deal for things to be diligent to be found in in him in peace spotless and blameless and regard the patience of our

Lord and Savior Lord as salvation just as also our beloved Paul Wrote to you.

Sorry according to the the wisdom given him wrote to you For 16 as also in all his letters

Speaking in them of the things which are some things hard to understand which the untaught and unstable distort as they do the rest of the

Scriptures to their own destruction. No, I was mistaken one

Peter and to Peter were written by Peter. I'm sorry Okay, I was thinking of one of the other books of the

New Testament Yeah. All right. So so what we what we have here though is Peter recognized at in his day and age

That we have the What Paul's writings is scripture so Peter knew it immediately

It was also filled up the Holy Spirit Okay Does did

Peter according to this passage recognize that what Paul wrote is scripture yes or no.

Yeah Did he need the church to do that? He was the church. He was the first Pope made by Jesus Christ So he was filled with do you agree that the

Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do that That's a non sequitur

Well, don't you think that being filled with the Holy Spirit would be necessary to recognize what is and what is not biblical?

Then I guess you're not filled with the Holy Spirit because you don't recognize what I just read to you Okay But in order to determine which books were canonical at the three councils in the 4th century in the late 4th century

The Council of Bishops were filled with the Holy of the Holy Spirit Because the

Holy Spirit is passed down on the laying of hands to successive bush at bishops There's certain grace that's given to members of the church specifically bishops in discerning

Which books are part of the Bible or not, but and that's what happened in the 4th century Hold on one second.

Here's the thing I gave you scripture that says that the the they knew it was scripture at that time

Peter did I Gave you scripture that which is funny because you're saying we need the church and yet I gave you

Scripture that says the new covenant is we no longer need priests We no longer need people to tell us what

God's Word says because we have the Spirit indwelling us That's the new covenant Jeremiah 31.

That's also in Ezekiel So now here's the thing you're saying it's it's clear

It's and you keep going back to wanting to ignore what actually is being said So tell me about the

Council of Jamnia in 70 AD I'm not familiar with that one.

What happened there? Oh You're not familiar when the rabbis got together and looked at some of the books that were that were claimed

The ones your Catholic Church claims is books of the Bible that they didn't they didn't really codify for 1 ,500 years

Okay, it wasn't until the the Protestant Reformation that all of a sudden these Maccabean books and all these others are now scripture because they weren't scripture in in the 4th century and They weren't scripture by the

Jewish rabbis in Jamnia in in 70 AD They thought the Protestant reformers removed those books.

I know no, no, no No, your Catholic Church added them in the 1500. They were never scripture

The early church never held them as scripture. They were books that are good historical books, but they were never

Scripture until they were needed to refute Martin Luther with views of Where we'd spend eternity

With the whole idea purgatory and all that because the only place you can find purgatory is in Maccabees But Maccabees was never seen as not true.

Huh? No, that's not sure You can find purgatory is elsewhere in the Bible to I could prove it show that to me

What verse? And what we might need to do in all seriousness Sebastian, I I liked

I liked the conversation But it we are 15 minutes over which I just wish that you didn't come in so late

I mean, I would give you a full show and we could have a full dialogue. Sure Well, let me just quote this.

This is 1 Corinthians 3 11 15. Let me get there 1st Corinthians What was it 1

Corinthians 3 11 through 15? Okay It says for other foundation can no man lay then that is laid which is

Jesus Christ Now if any man build upon this foundation gold silver precious stones would haste double

Every man's work should be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire

And the fire shall try even I'm sorry and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is

If any man's work abide which he have built thereupon He shall receive a reward if any man's work shall be burned

He shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved yet. So as by fire Hmm that sure sounds like purgatory to me.

Yeah, but that's not purgatory Yeah, it is what happens in purgatory. You were saved yet by fire now

Here's the thing now remove the idea purgatory and and say is this teaching anything else?

I mean, is there are people gonna have a be in a place say called hell where there's fire

Yeah, how exists it's within your so so then how do you know this isn't talking about that Because the

Bible makes clear that hell is an everlasting fire will where people suffer eternally But this isn't what this is talking about.

It's talking about people who are saved yet by fire Okay, and is this talking about in in this context is this talking about regeneration

No, that's not what it's talking about. Okay, so then it's Purgatory, no, no.

No, it's it's not I'm asking you the context What what is this whole thing starting about The the answers at verse one actually is where it starts

Okay in what is a spiritual per the spiritual man versus the man of flesh?

Okay, the fact that there's things in he's talking about people who are who are still living in the world acting like those of the world

And not acting like Christians, right? So so this is this is the whole thing.

I'm saying to you what I'm doing is giving you the way to interpret Anything so you can make the

Bible say anything you want if you take a little bit from here and a little bit from there And put them together, but that's not the right way to interpret anything.

Yeah, but that's why you need tradition because you're right That's exactly what Protestants do today is they just interpret the

Bible however, they want So then so then you're you're worshiping your church your church is your authority

Bible No, they're both authorities. No, they aren't. Yes. They are

Can I can I interpret the Bible without the church? Let me ask you this what existed first the church or the

Bible's the Bible Bible No, they didn't. Nope. The Bible exists. Yeah existed before the

Bible. Okay, hold on. This is gonna be fun for you Which came first the book of Genesis or the

Roman Catholic Church? Okay, but we're not talking about the Bible that refers to the

Old Testament We're talking about the Bible that refers to both the new and old which occurred In the 3rd century or 4th century rather by st

John Chrysostom before that the Bible only referred to the books of the Old Testament So what

Jesus read from what scriptures did Jesus read from before there was a church? What did he read from?

He was reading from the scriptures of the old of the Old Church. He fulfilled the Old Testament I don't understand what point you're getting it.

And so we have the Bible being written Before there is before there was a church

So what came first came first you just agreed you also agreed that your church is required

That's not the same Bible. We're talking about two different Bibles You're trying to conflate two different things and you're playing like a weird semantic game

No, not a Bible does the the Old Bible Bible of the Old Testament includes only the books of the

Old Testament Okay, I don't I don't see what kind of trickery you're trying to play here, but the Bible refers to New and Old Testament.

I'm not doing it. Let's play. Let's let's define terms here. I am what I will bet

Bible that we're talking about here is Bible the Christian Bible that contains both the

New and Old Testament That didn't that wasn't officially canonized until the 4th century at the

Council of Roman Carthage in 390 387 393 and 397.

Have you read have you read those? Have you read about those councils? Because yeah, you actually read the councils what you'd realize is they already recognized before those councils

Yeah, the Bible that we have today. Yeah recognize them as scripture What the discussion was some other books that people like the

Catholic Church? That people were the early Catholic Church was trying to put into and say was the

Bible So the reality is where you're saying? Oh the Catholic Church gave us the Bible The Bible existed before any of those councils.

No, it doesn't it didn't because why don't you? Why don't you read all the other books that were being used in public worship?

There were when was the last book of the Bible written? That would be revelate

Revelation, so yeah revelation. I would say probably 90 AD. Okay, when when was this council where it was canonized?

The books of the Bible were canonized at the councils of Hippo Roman Carthage. I believe that's 387 393 and 397 respectively.

So I'm gonna ask us which should be a really simple question. What came first? 90

AD or 300 some 80. Okay, but there's still 60 years between Jesus's death and resurrection and The writing of the last gospel you don't answer simple questions

Are you voting for Kamala Harris because you argue like she does? No, I'm not voting this election

Because both parties are supporting genocide so Yeah, well one's gonna be put in Christians in prison.

So alright, so you can't answer the question which can I just your I Understand your question, but it's it's deceptive because you're acting like the church didn't exist before 90

AD Well, no the first books of the Bible which did not exist before 90 AD. I Of course it did

Jesus were the Apostles. It was Jesus Christ not speaking to the church and in the New Testament The pot the twelve

Apostles were his church That wasn't the Roman Catholic Church The Roman Catholic wasn't of course

It was Roman Catholic Church that you have they didn't exist until about a thousand a day with Pope Innocence the second.

No Yeah, no Yeah and and I know that to be true because the people who canonized the books of the

Bible believe in everything the Catholic Church believes Today not not everything but but you only accept that information from the

Catholic Church. Oh This is this is well documented information. I mean the writings of the early

Christians Example you you see the problem is that your church is the authority yes, because it's the church that gave us the books of the

Bible and The Bible is also authoritative because all the beliefs of the church come are

Rooted you can find evidence for everything that the church believes in the Bible So and you have to agree you have to agree though that the church existed before the

Bible I mean who was spreading the gospel so that 30 to 60 years after Christ It was the church you're calling me a liar.

He called the Old Testament Scripture he called it scripture, right?

So it was I'm not gonna play this. I'm not gonna rehash this argument again If you didn't get it the first time then you're not gonna get it the second time

But the the Bible isn't just the Old Testament It's the new and the old and that that wasn't officially canonized.

I didn't say that the Bible came into existence at these three councils I said it was officially canonized in the

Catholic Church. These councils are meant to Officially define things that were already believed but without this without these three councils

Why don't you use the Shepherd of Hermas for example or the gospel of Peter or the gospel of Pontius Pilate?

I can include those as part of the Bible very simple because what we know of the canon is when the scriptures were written

They were immediately recognized as scripture at the time No reason you don't know because because you're you can't say that because you're relying on the authority of the church to tell you

Which books? Scripture I gave you sure I gave you

Peter's own words in first in 2nd Peter 315 The fact is is that what we see through history in Judaism is that they knew what was scripture because at the moment it was written

Because it is breathed out by God as Paul says in in 2nd Timothy 316

So you're you you have to take a step back and especially tell you why this is important, okay

You're if you believe in in Roman Catholic doctrine Then you believe that you will get right with God by faith plus works.

Is that correct? Yeah, listen, we're jumping around everywhere. But that is that is what

I mean what I do in fact believe, okay So what the Bible teaches is you that works will damn you to hell

Okay. Yes evil works will damn you to hell. Oh, yeah, you're good works Now evil evil deeds will damn you to hell on unconfessed evil deeds will and that's what the

Bible says Then why is it that that Paul says that we're saved by faith?

Not of works and he says it will define faith what's faith? What is faith?

Is it just like an intellectual kind of acknowledgement that Jesus Christ is God or does faith also encompass?

being baptized Listening to the church. Okay. How do you define faith? well

It's gonna depend on the context but in the context that I'm referring to with Paul. It's talking specifically about the fact of Regeneration, okay.

So what it says in Ephesians 2 8 and 9 It says that that we are saved

Okay I'll start at verse 8 for by grace you have been saved through faith and That not of yourselves.

It is the gift of God Not as a result of works lest any man should boast

So it's very clearly saying it is it's not of works now in in Titus.

He's gonna say a similar thing Okay, if you if you look over at Titus, let me just look this up really quick Quickly, I should say properly

Do Where is it in Titus, can we can we extend the length of this conversation to a set time?

Could we do maybe 15 minutes or let's say it 940 or so and then and then call X I I want to be respectful of your

I'm willing to debate longer, but I want to be respectful No, I think I would like to actually have you come back and we have and we we pick a some specific topics and go

Through them. Okay, that's fine. You know, but I'm just trying. Why did

I draw a blank on where this is in Titus? Well while you're looking for that since you quoted

Ephesians I'll just say that in Ephesians 5 5 through 8 it says for this

You know that no whoremonger no unclean person nor covetous man Who is an idolater have any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God let no man deceive with you with vain words

For because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience But not you be not ye therefore partakers with them for ye were sometimes dark for ye were sometimes darkness

But now are ye light and the Lord walk as children of the light. So it sounds like in in That passage that your evil deeds do in fact take you to hell because they do

Yeah, we don't disagree with that Okay, so says the Titus 3 5 says he saved us not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to his mercy by the washing and the and the

Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit So that the both of these passages

I gave you are clearly talking about Regeneration how you get right with God and he in both of them says it's not by works now.

Here's the thing This is why I wanted to talk about this because I if I only get one chance to talk to you Sebastian This is the most important thing.

Okay? What your church teaches is that we're saved by faith plus works

What the Bible teaches is that we're saved by faith not of works. That's a major difference.

In fact What we see in in John is that you can't even be called a child of God if you're trusting in works

Okay, because what it says in 1st John chapter chapter 1 verse 12 and 13 But as many as receive him have the right to be called the child of God To those who believe in his name who were born not of blood

Not of the will of the flesh nor the will of man. So not of blood is the genealogy So I believed just because I was

Jewish. I thought I was automatically going to heaven. My Judaism isn't gonna save me the my desire

The will of the flesh isn't gonna save me that my my works My will of the man is not gonna save me.

So we see a consistent thing when it comes to regeneration the Bible teaches we cannot be saved by works and I'm gonna tell you why

I Get offended when people say this and I'm gonna tell you this. There's the the reality is

Sebastian that there's only one religion in the world That teaches that God did the work

Every man -made religion teaches that humans add something to salvation. They have to do something to earn it

They do something to merit it, but it is only biblical Christianity Which existed before the

Roman Catholic Church did that taught that it is by faith alone

By what Jesus did alone and when you add anything if you add your good works to what Jesus did on the cross

You diminish what Jesus did on the cross Do you really want to stand before God and tell him?

Hey Jesus you you took an eternal fine But look at what

I did. I walked an old lady across the street. It's disingenuous Do you not see that No, I think it's a gross misinterpretation what about water baptism you said that faith alone is all that's required or necessary What about water baptism

Jesus explicitly said that water baptism is required No, yeah, no

So you don't believe that in did Jesus did Jesus lie to the thief on the cross? No, he didn't did that guy get baptized

Well, hold on I don't think you understand what the events that took place there because after G after Jesus Christ died on the cross

Salvation that Jesus Christ go up to heaven after he died on the cross immediately or where did he go?

Okay, is is baptism necessary for salvation? Yes, of course, that's what yes

Christ himself. So no Jewish person in the Old Testament ever went to heaven

The thief on the cross is not in here because they were baptized How they weren't baptized in paradise.

Yes, they were. So when Jesus said that whoa Where do you see that? There's a baptism that we get in heaven

Well, let me I asked you this before but where was Jesus after he died on the cross.

Did he go into heaven immediately? Well as he told a thief today, you'll be with me in heaven right or in paradise, right?

Well, we do know that he he well if he was there with him in heaven, then yes He was also he also according to first Peter was in Hades To proclaim to the to the demons that were locked in since Noah's day that he is now victorious right, so Jesus Christ did not ascend immediately into heaven after his death on the cross and we know this because he told

Mary Magdalene not to Touch him after after he resurrected. He told her not to touch him yet because he had not yet ascended into heaven

So the paradise he's referring to is not the not heaven It's the paradise where the

Saints the justified souls the Old Testament went to After they died, which is a place in hell called limbo

Which has no hellfire, it's where Babies who are not baptized Go because there's no hellfire, but they're eternally disconnected from God and it's there in this place called limbo where people who died

Where the justified souls the Old Testament were believed to be water baptized. So yes, they you get all this from your church, right?

Well, how else can you explain it? You you have to admit that Jesus Christ did not go up into heaven immediately.

I Didn't he he he was really really quite clear today.

You'll be with me in paradise. Where was his body? Well, his body was in the tomb still but his and And where was he?

Jesus Christ was in Paradise, but paradise does not refer to heaven Okay, so he so paradise doesn't mean heaven by who by what standard?

Come by the very fact that Jesus Christ himself said after he was resurrected that do not touch me yet Because I have not yet resurrected.

I have not yet ascended into heaven. So Right there. We have proof that Jesus had not yet ascended into heaven.

So therefore the paradise he's referring to is not heaven Okay, so did his body ascend to heaven at that time?

No, it's in the tomb. Okay. So where was he? He was in the limbo he was he was he was not in purgatory

He was in the limbo of our fathers that can let me try this is Jesus Christ God Yes, okay is

God all -knowing he knows all things Yes Is God all -powerful?

Yes, is God everywhere present Yes No, yes, so I'm gonna ask again, where was

Jesus Jesus was baptizing the

The answer is everywhere Everywhere hold on.

I'm not sure. I'm actually not sure if I believe that sounds you didn't you deny the deity of Jesus Christ How We we know that he was okay

But if he was everywhere, then how could he say to Mary that he had not yet ascended into heaven? Because his body hadn't ascended into heaven

I'm not so sure. He's talking about his body there. How can how do you know he's talking about his body? What was it?

She was trying to cling to Okay, his his body sure, but that That doesn't that's still not

That's not That's how I know it's his body because that's what she was trying to cling to you just said it

But he didn't say my body just because she was clinging on to his body. That's not conclusive. That's that's a stretch.

It's a leap Wow, okay this

I really hope we can have a further discussion because your your delusion is amazing

You think illusion it's it's just context clues of the Bible. We know that Jesus hadn't ascended yet.

So he Is a paradise and also there's other proof Yeah, but here's the thing.

Well, I know you're gonna have a lot of proof But you know what? You can't do you can't read the Bible in its context the way you are expected to interpret things

You have to jump around and read into the Bible things your church has told you I I just asked you

Where you told me where was Jesus if you deny that Jesus is everywhere he was in heaven

Because he's God He was in hell Because he's

God His body wasn't there yet. And so I asked you said what's it talking about?

How do you why do I think it's talking about? The body I asked you what is she clinging to what is Jesus talking about?

You said his body? Yeah, but you're you're making a stretch there the stretch there.

Is that why did you stretch it? Why did you make that stretch then? You're the one you're the one who's making the stretch because you're the one that asked you

What assuming you're assuming that because she's clinging on to his body that Jesus is referring to his body

But where there's no proof of that just because she's clinging to his body isn't just To his body and he's saying don't cling to me

Doesn't mean it's the body so but you want to then say that it's that's the stretch the direct context of the stretch

But you reading into that something of limbo that doesn't exist in the Bible anywhere That's not the stretch.

The only part where you see limbo where babies go is in the Catholic Church There is no limbo.

There is no purgatory and the the the fact is that Purgatory if you're gonna if you want to work your sins off the reason

I wanted to talk about how we get right with God is because Sebastian if You're gonna stand before God and say look at the works that I did

Lord He is going to judge you according to your sin Okay, you're the good deeds you think you do are what's going to judge you

The name of the book in Revelation that you're gonna be judged by is called the book of works

The very works you think are gonna save you are gonna actually condemn you. That's why

I'm concerned about this That's more important than any of the other arguments Sebastian is where you spend eternity.

You're not going to a purgatory to work off your sin You're going to either heaven or hell.

It's a point a Hebrew says this It's appointed unto man wants to die and then the judgment not a future judgment.

It's Immediate. How do we know where the thief on the cross had an immediate judgment? Soon as he died he was going to paradise

Yeah, but paradise is in heaven is that I'm here Be a court a problem according to Catholic Church, but not according to what any

Jewish person would have understood at the time Okay. What about this? What about math? Well Paradise is is much better than being in an eternal hell, of course, because there's no hellfire.

You're just separated from God But how about Matthew? How about Matthew 27 to 52?

Hold on. You think that people are separated from God in hell? Yeah, where do you think?

unbaptized babies are so Well, I don't know where but where any babies go but has nothing to do with baptism now

Jesus Christ said himself I'm gonna I'm gonna go back to this is

God everywhere present. Yes or no? Yeah, can you can you just make your point please because I just did the fact is as you say

God's not in hell But he's everywhere present you this is the reason when we talk theology if your theology

Ends up with a different God than the God of the Bible. Your theology is wrong when you say that God is not in hell

God is everywhere He's everywhere.

There's no place where God is not And if you have a doctrine that teaches that God is not somewhere you do not have the

God of the Bible Okay, okay, but you can't say definitely if unbaptized babies are in heaven or hell

Well again The baptism is something you're adding to Scripture because your church adds those works what about John 3 what is it

John 3 5? Do you want an answer or no? Well because John 3 5 says truly truly

I say to you unless one is born of water and the Spirit He cannot enter the kingdom of God. So if babies are baptized then what is that water?

It's physical water You're like you mean like in a womb like Water like material water womb.

Is it water like in the womb? No, it's like water

Outside of the womb When did the Bible ever call that read the verse again

Truly truly I say to you among unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God Okay, so born when we talk of birth

What type of water is associated with birth Whatever is in the womb

I suppose, okay All right. So there you go. Now you just answered the question.

What is that water? That water is the womb physical birth. What is the then what is birth from a spirit?

That would be receiving the gospel Okay, and so we see the very next verse this is context that which is born of flesh is what?

It's flesh and now which is born of spirit of spirit. Now, how are we born in the flesh?

Just by being a born and what type of water is there when we're born in the flesh Not the same type of water that's required for baptism.

But what what's the what is the water when we're born in the flesh? What is that water? I don't know.

Can you I thought you said you were like pressed for time We just make your point

Well, I made the point and I actually made you make the point It's the water of the womb you asked what the water is.

You have the answer in the context. It's not Chisholm I'll explain why because there is an instance.

I forget which part of the Bible but there's an instance where someone is traveling with one of the Apostles and They had to look around for water to get baptized.

I'll have to look for the exact story in the Bible, but next What's that it's nice right here's the thing here's the thing

This passage here is very clear from the context This is what I'm doing when I'm trying to do

Sebastian And I hope that you'll learn from this because this is how though you will understand the Bible apart from what your your church teaches

You okay It's how to you all I'm doing is reading in context see

I'm not adding anything in I'm not pulling some making some Spiritualizing of it. I'm not I'm not stretching as you is to use your word.

I'm looking at the at the context Do you like take being taken out of context?

Was that a rhetorical question or did you actually want me to answer that no, you actually want you to answer Do you like being taken out of context?

No, do you think God likes to be taken out of context? now But when you start to fit baptism into something that where the context is quite clear talking about That which is born of flesh is flesh

Water that's when you're born of flesh you you said it is of the womb This is not a passage talking about baptism.

The fact that your church tells you that says that your church Cannot rightly handle and interpret the

Word of God Because they're not even reading the next verse. They can't even read the context of it

I'm not having to go anywhere else But the passages and what I'm doing with each one of the passage you're trying to give me all

I'm trying to do is read the context of it because the context gives us the answer and My fear for you

Sebastian is that if you were to die today if you're one of the hundred and sixty thousand people that die Today you would spend eternity in a lake of fire

You wouldn't spend it in purgatory. You'd go immediately to hell because you're trusting in your good works and your baptism

That's gonna condemn you to hell Sebastian I don't want that for you. I Want you to know what the biblical gospel is the gospel that was there before there was a

Catholic Church Before there was even a church the gospel that we can see in the Old Testament Okay in the book of Leviticus.

It teaches that you and I in every single human being are unclean We're not pure we are not right in the sight of God and We need an atonement a payment made for us

But that payment can only be made from God That God had to provide a lamb that would be slaughtered and as an act that would would be a way of sacrifice that there had to be a

Sacrifice to be made on our behalf that we can't do That only God can do

That is the gospel that existed long before the Roman Catholic Church ever existed long before any church

That is the gospel you can find in the book of Leviticus This is what the

Bible teaches that you your good works will not save you Sebastian. They'll condemn you to hell

So, please I want you to read what the Bible actually says and not what your church teaches

It's leading you astray So that seemed like closing remarks

I'll offer my closing remarks and I suppose we can is that fine if I just oh, go ahead closing and then

I'll close Okay, and then we maybe we can schedule something Great, I can give you my email or whatever

Okay so I Guess I'll just say that you're accusing me of selective interpretation, but I'm actually

You're still relying on the authority of the church to give you the Bible that you're interpreting so why don't you interpret the

Shepherd of Irma's or the Gospel of Peter or all these other books that were excluded and You know, you also have to ask yourself why the bishops?

Excluded these books well because they receive a tradition and they have to choose books to be considered a canon part of the

Bible That matched the tradition that that they receive Also on baptism, there's a lot more proof you you didn't really even say anything against the

Historian acts where they look for water to receive baptism. So that that wasn't even conclusive proof so I Mean well if we really want to get into a more

Nuanced argument which I think would probably be more beneficial instead of jumping because we jumped around a lot

So if we could I don't know maybe get into a more specific debate. I feel like that would be more helpful well, it would but the problem is you would have to actually stick to You know, you're gonna you'd what you'd have to do is stick to like one passage and not jump all around Okay.

Yeah, but the problem is that you have to interpret the Bible as a whole you can't just Like the gospel everything has to be taken as a whole you can't just you know

Do these that's why it's called selective interpretation because you're just selecting one passage and you're interpreting it without regard for the broader context

No What you're supposed to do is actually I am looking at the broader context what you're doing is taking it out of context to put

It into a different context with another passage called proof texting where you take a verse here take a verse there slam them together

But the context doesn't fit the way you're supposed to do it is read a passage Get the context read another passage get the context if that context is the same then you can put them together

You're not doing that. Yeah, but I am and and you can claim that you are too So obviously there's you didn't do that with the passage you brought up about the water

You said that's baptism just because it mentions water Yeah, and then you use some sort of Weird logic to say that the water in the woman's womb

Constituted the water required Actually, I didn't use weird logic. I asked you the questions and you're are the one that you know, here we go

That's that's why you have to ask those questions so you later can say oh I asked you all those questions and you said

Because I see that in a simple reading you could understand the

Bible without what your church teaches you that's why Okay, but people didn't have access to the Bible for the first 1 ,500 years

That wasn't until the invention of the printing press that people had access to the Bible You really do you really believe that Yeah, and it was things and by the way

It was things we Catholic monks who have to translate and reproduce the Bible by hand so that other people could could have and particularly parishes in public worship

You just claimed You I want you to go back and listen to what you're claiming You've just claimed that we didn't have a

Bible to the 1500s and yet the knowledge That's not what I said. I said most people didn't have access to the books of the

Bible and You know that most people didn't have access Yeah until the invention of the printing press when we can mass distribute the

Bible and mass produce and mass distribute We we distributed far more after the printing press, but we actually

Mass produced the Bible more than any other book in antiquity Yes, thanks to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.

No In the first 300 years we have we have hundreds of copies of the

Bible Okay, and how many people required access to that? There's there's tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of Christians and we have hundreds of Bibles every every

Jewish person would have would be in the synagogue Having the Bible Okay We're not talking about the old books

We're talking about the books of the New Testament here that contained the gospel message.

We're talking about the Bible We're not talking about the books of the Old Testament that don't contain the gospel message

We're talking about the the Bible that contains the gospel message, which is a

Christian Bible Yeah, no, no one had access. There was no mass access to the

Bible All history and all facts Because they're conflating two different things

Waiting anything. I'm not conflating anything. I know what the Bible actually is. It started Genesis and Genesis was written and that was the

Bible because it was the Word of God Everyone recognized it at the time that it was the Bible. It's called Scripture It was the

Word of God and people read it and knew it was the Bible. You were right, but if I'm right now

The Bible is now a book that includes both the New and the Old Testament I don't see why you're trying to play this like I'm not playing a game

We said the Bible is the church Let's just stick with the definition that the Bible means the

Christian Bible Not the Old Testament because otherwise you're just gonna confuse the conversation.

Let's make it a simple conversation So let me get this straight. We have to first give up the truth for your

Your Created definition of the Bible. It's not giving up the truth. It's a fact

Okay, when when when Genesis was the only book written was that the

Bible? Yes, it was it was considered Whatever was identical to the

Bible, but that's that's not what we're talking about here Okay, what we're talking about was it the

Bible did that contain the gospel message? Actually, yes, it does The one promulgated by Christ Yeah So does

Leviticus Leviticus one of the early books of the Bible first five and it has the gospel clearly presented throughout

Okay, but we're talking we're talking about a different. I'm talking about the New Covenant here Yeah, of course because you because the facts don't fit your church.

No because the Old Covenant is dead That's why we're talking about the only pathway to salvation

What's the new and it's just the Bible I don't know that's that's a semantic kind of question and Until your church came along you said that I'm just trying to like set set the rules of the debate and Frankly, it's not even dishonest.

It's it's what we can all agree on which is that the Bible refers to the books that contain the gospel message

Okay, so that's the only one today has We'll take that and that's still the

Old Testament No, because if someone today has only the book of Genesis They don't have the gospel message and they won't learn what is required to be saved.

That's the problem So you've created a definition. No, I didn't create anything. I'm okay.

What is genocide? I'm sorry, what was that is Genesis when that was written?

Yeah, the first five books of Moses they're written Was that the Bible it was you're right it was but we're not talking about was we're talking about now

What is it? What is it? Now? Try try to use some common -sense thinking that was the Bible at that time, correct?

Yes, that correct. Okay. Did the church exist yet? What what church?

Did the church exist during the time of Moses when he wrote the first five books? um,

I mean Probably not because it was just Moses who had received the

Covenant but That I don't think the church would become like it wouldn't become an organization

Really with priests with the priesthood until the Covenant was implemented So you don't think the that the

Old Testament the Levites were priests they weren't No, that's what I'm saying is that they were there they were priests, but that came up that came after Moses had received

The law so Not from Christ. Well, technically but so let me ask him

China sent So in the time of Moses, he writes these five books that we would call

Scripture Is that the Bible? It was then but but it's not now it was then it's so those aren't the

Bible now That's not part of the Bible now. No because they don't contain the gospel message It's so hard to understand about that you can't pick up just the first five books of the

Bible today Read them and and and you have what's needed to be saved that that's only contained in the gospel

But let me try this. Let me try a different act. What makes the Bible? Scripture it contains the

Instructions it contains the gospel message to that. Okay, and is that what the

Bible says about itself? I'm not sure

Why do you have something? Yeah, Paul says this in 2nd Timothy 3 16 and 17 all 2nd

Timothy Yep, three 16 and 17.

Okay. Okay. So it's talking about Scripture, right? all

Scripture Isn't is God breathed? So, what does that say

Scripture is does that say scripture God It comes from God so it doesn't use for teaching rebuking correcting and training and righteousness

Well, actually if you go on so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good work so I'm just reading from New international version.

Okay. Yeah, I can debate purposes Yeah, so so what makes it scripture is that God spoke it can we agree with that sure

Then it has no bearing on the message, correct. It's on the fact that God spoke it

Yeah, sure. Okay. So is the first five books of Moses are they scripture?

Yes, they are. Did they exist before the church? they exist before the

Church of Christ Sure. Okay. So did the Bible exist before the church?

The Old Testament Bible did yes okay, so then the

Church didn't give us the Bible because it existed before the church Yeah, okay.

This this doesn't really address none of none of this Address what

Mike what my core argument was which is that the books of the Old Testament don't contain the gospel message

You can't read just the Old Testament and record about Christ and you can

Know you can't you use it's an old covenant Okay Daniel I'm gonna give you

I'm gonna let you in here. I know you've been commenting I'm gonna try to catch up on the on the comments here Wow you guys

Really? Okay but you at least see what I'm saying here is that you need the New Testament to receive the new covenant and the new covenant is

The only covenant that's available right now for salvation. It is the covenant of salvation

Okay, but the problem is is that the only reason you need that is because you redefine what the

Bible is. No, it's no we know it's because Jesus Christ came and Gave us a new covenant and and fulfilled the

Old Covenant He the Old Covenant died on the cross with Jesus Christ and new one began with Jesus Christ And what is the new covenant?

It is it is receiving water baptism and it's receiving the gospel message that Jesus Christ is

God He came it's the it's the mysteries of faith that are required To to be saved the

Catholic Church goes over this but it's basically believing in the death and resurrection of Christ So it's so it's not what the

Bible says it is Which is that you would have the Holy Spirit and dwell you and you would no longer need a priest

It's it's not what the Bible says Because the Bible was clear. I read it to you in Jeremiah 31 you reject that because oh, that's the

Old Testament But that's what the Bible says the New Testament. I Consider it a part of Scripture, but I reject that the idea that the

Old Covenant is still alive and a means of salvation It's not and I also reject the idea that the

Old Covenant or the Old Testament. It's not a means of salvation It was the Bible's not the means of salvation.

I didn't say it was Okay, maybe I misheard I think so, but So, well you go you were making a point

Well, no, I was you you made the point that the church gave us the Bible you made that point

All I did was a new also the Bible referring to both the new books and the old books

Yeah, but that's not the definition of the Bible Okay, but can we just like go along with that definition for the for the why do you want me to pretty much?

Compromise the truth so your lie could be can make sense It's not a lie. The Bible encompasses both the

New and Old Testament does does the Old Testament that does just the Jewish Bible to contain? Books of the

Bible. No, it doesn't What makes What makes something scripture

I asked you this before What makes it scripture okay, it was

We already went through this it comes from God. Okay, I agree Does does the do does the

Old Testament Bible contain all of scripture. No, it does not. What did you have that word?

What all well, don't you need everything no, why not?

Why would you want? Did he why did he give it to us progressively? Okay, but why would the

Bible contain the new the Bible the new Bible contain Both the books of the New Testament and the

Old Testament if we didn't need the New Testament books It's because you do need the New Testament books for salvation.

Yes Okay, so you're the Old Testament books are insufficient salvation nobody

No person before the time of Christ is gonna be in heaven because they have no way of knowing what the gospel message was

It's not what I said. I I believe that I believe we already we already covered this in our inner

I know but your country your country Okay The gospel in the

Old Testament times Well, it's not the same gospel we're talking about What a different law here, so there's two ways to get a new law, okay

So, how did they get saved in the old in the Old Testament by following the old law? Okay, and so what is that old law

It was whatever was given to Moses You don't even know what it is the

Old Covenant So it was you're saying it was works and pre the precepts of the old Well, yes, of course

Are you aware that they had a confession to it basically that the prefigurement of confession and in the

Old Testament where they have to take? With animals to a priest. Yes, they did. They took an animal that then animal sacrifice to Their sins.

Yeah, that's not a confession and and and that was actually that right there You don't even recognize what you just did.

You just showed that it doesn't it's not by works the read Why did they need the sacrifice?

Because all of them from their sin in them Because there's all them for their sin to absolve them.

Yes Leviticus says Well, you take a sacrifice to the priest to be forgiven of your sins and so that you can be right with God again

That's that's what confession is to a priest So it's not really a stretch to Think that confession to a priest is so out there.

That's that's literally I mean not literally but it is Effectively what they were doing in the Old Testament not what they're doing.

It's actually in fact, it's absolutely not what they're doing Yes, that is that is what that's why they took an animal to a priest to have a sacrifice for their sins

Why? to absolve Yes Is that and can you show me where that word is used to turn away

Turn away God's wrath. Yeah, the word that's used is to make atonement Okay, and how is that so how is that so different because because in Leviticus it says that we can't make atonement

Only God can make atonement Okay, so then why were they taking an animal sacrifice to get a time in person?

You're asking a good question, why would they make atonement? Why would they bring an animal for atonement that?

Can't actually do anything Why would they do that? Hebrews tells us the answer

It was a prefiguring of what would happen in Christ So they have the gospel in the

Old Testament. They looked forward and saw what God would do to a lamb that would come

Okay, so they do have the gospel They don't have the

New covenant that old covenant is that they did they did have Sebastian have a means of salvation, but they don't anymore

Do you notice that every time I answer your question and you get stuck all you do is change topic

Do you notice you do that? I'm not changing topic. You just I'm letting you know that you haven't made a convincing argument

It's not convincing. I know it's not convincing because you keep changing the topic and you're not You are all

I'm doing is walking you down and you're actually like going oh, okay, here's the answer and Then soon as you

I put it together for you. You go up. Let's jump over here. Let's jump over here. Let's jump over there What I'm trying to do is help you to look at what

Scripture actually says Right And so what we're dealing with here is the fact that There's many things you've stated that are inaccurate by your own conclusion as we went through this

Okay, so I I get it you're as we're looking at Scripture You're suddenly seeing things

Then you it's like oh That's not what the scripture actually says But the church says and that's where your conflict is

And so I'm gonna give this to Daniel because I know he's been sitting quietly I'll give you a chance to close out if you want to continue some discussion with Sebastian.

Go ahead. I Was just sitting back listening Not quite sure where I would jump in at so I will say that a lot of times probably

All right. I will say this that uh Like you say you accept that Peter talks about Paul's word being

Scripture and accepting What Paul says is being Scripture because Peter was the first Pope but we also see that a

Paul does that as well in First Timothy 5 18 he refers he quotes

Luke 10 7 and calls it Scripture. So see even outside of your

First Pope we see Paul also referring to writings of the New Testament in that early time as Scripture as well

So we have an internal Consistency within the Bible that already gives us the that tells us that it's already considered

Scripture So I just wanted to throw that out there. That was I Agree that the books of the

Old Testament are Scripture. I'm not that's not a part of this of what I'm Okay debating here, well, no it is because you stated that the church gave us the

Bible Not not not just of the

Old Testament but of the New Testament as well And we would agree with you that both the

Old Testament and the New Testament are Scripture as well But if they're both God free, then you can't say that one is

Not needed anymore Like you can't understand the New Testament without also being knowing the

Old Testament But you need both together. We have the full complete revelation from God and you say that the gospel wasn't presented in the

Old Testament But in Luke 24 27 after his resurrection Jesus is talking with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus And he says and it's written then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets

He that is Jesus explained to them that things concerning himself in all the scriptures so Jesus points the

Apostles and the people in his time back to the Old Testament to show them what the

Old Testament says about him My uh, my my knee accidentally

Disconnected I lifted my knee up and it disconnected my microphone from the jack and I literally missed like the last 30 seconds of what?

I That's better than what I thought he said I thought he said my knee disconnected and I went that sounds bad

Like I would not have my knee just this got destroyed it and he's just like casual about Yeah, no if you saw me shifting around here and looking a little

Frantic is because I was trying to get the audio to go back But if you could just go back and repeat the last 30 seconds, please

Well, I don't know exactly what the last exact 30 seconds were but in Luke 2427

Jesus after his resurrection was talking with two disciples on the road to Emmaus and It Luke records for us.

And as I just stated a little earlier Paul calls Luke's writing scripture So in the scripture, it says then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets he that is

Jesus explained to them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures and Then also

Jesus says in John 5 46 for if you believed Moses you would believe me for he wrote about me

But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? So even

Jesus attests to the fact that Moses and the Old Testament Scriptures a test to him and point forward to him.

Yeah, I agree but I Don't agree that The Old Covenant is a still still a valid means of salvation.

It's not Jesus Christ and I Agree with you and you would agree, right? So the Old Testament law is not a means to salvation because James writes in James 2 10 for anybody who would think that For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point

He has become guilty of all So James Jesus's brother says even if you transgress one law

You're guilty of breaking the whole law that God gave in the Old Testament So that's why we can't trust in the old law.

Our salvation is in Jesus Christ alone That's where our faith is placed But it doesn't mean that the

Old Testament does not contain the gospel message because it does of course it does

That's exactly what it means. Can I ask you one question? I don't know if you heard me read this earlier, but do you believe you can become

God? No, let's not ask these kind of questions. It's just like I don't believe that But your

Catholic but your church does know I don't I don't accept any of the writings of Any of the claimants to the chair from 1962 on forward?

There was a communist revolution and the Vatican all the

Yeah, so all the all the catechisms that you're gonna quote from 1962 and thereafter

I reject they're not the Catholic Church. They don't they don't uphold Okay So you really don't like this

Pope this current Pope, huh? He's not a Pope. He's an anti Pope. He's promoting all sorts of perversions and heresies, so So are you without a

Pope right now? Currently the chair is empty. I hold the state of a

Kansas position so So Has a has it ended stopped

What was that has? Ended no, it's just a

Extended interregnum and there have been many and tragnums before whenever a

Pope dies. There's an interregnum So this one's just longer but you have a ballot loop that was elected that was placed there in apostolic succession

So you deny that the church's apostolic succession is valid and You also deny that since the church put it there.

You said we need the church So if the church if the church is necessary to interpret the

Bible How could they not know who they're the right person to succeed with it?

Yeah, this is this is a whole other conversation that we could have but There there's no break in apostolic succession,

I think we're living in the end times So I'll just say that but the

Catholic Church still exists it's within a remnant of the people who uphold its teachings because that's

Core crux of what the church is is what its teachings are But its teachings are true but in regards to the scriptural debate we were having

The Old Testament just doesn't contain the gospel message And I I don't think any person would would disagree with that Anyone who would pick up the

Bible frankly would come to the same conclusion that there Jesus Christ is not talked about Explicitly in the

Old Testament. Neither are his teachings mentioned Neither is the requirement for water baptism mentioned in the

Old Testament There there's a lot more precepts. I want to I want to read a passage of Scripture Tell me who this is speaking of if you don't mind

That we should look upon him nor Nor appearance that we should be attracted to him he was despised and forsaken of men a man of sorrows and I acquainted with grief and Like one from whom he hid their

Whom many men hid their face. He was despised and we did not esteem him surely our griefs

He also bore and Our sorrows he carried

Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken smitten by God and afflicted

But he was pierced through for our transgression. He was crushed for our iniquities the chastening

For our well -being fell upon him and by his scourging we were healed

All of us like sheep have gone astray Each of us have turned our own way, but the

Lord caused the iniquity of all of us to fall upon him He is oppressed and was afflicted

Yet he did not open his mouth like a lamb That is led to the slaughter

Like a sheep that is silent before its shearers So he did not open his mouth by oppression and judgment he was taken away and and for his generation

Who considered that he was cut off of the land of the living for transgression of my people?

To whom the stroke was due his grave was assigned with wicked men

Yet he was with a rich man in his death Because he had done no violence

Nor was there any deceit in his mouth the Lord Was pleased to crush him putting him to grief if he would render himself as a guilt offering

He will see his offspring He will prolong his days and the good pleasure of the

Lord will prosper at his hand as a result of the anguish Of his soul he will see and be satisfied by his knowledge the righteous one my servant will justify the many as He will bear their iniquities

Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great and he will divide the booty with of the strong because he poured out himself to death and Was numbered with the transgressors yet He himself bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors.

Who's that speaking of? Well, it sounds like one of the prophecy books about Christ but So why do you think that's

Christ? speaking of Christ well because of the piercing and Taking our

Taking our sins. I Mean, yeah, it's obviously a prophecy about Christ Hmm and it and yet it contains the gospel message right there.

No, it doesn't sure it does He took our iniquities upon himself. Is that not the gospel message?

It's part of it. It is the message that that our sin was was bore by Christ So, you know just son to think about I mean

Millions of Jewish people are gonna be in heaven Because they knew the gospel Yeah, I I don't deny that.

There's Jews that followed the Old Covenant that are in heaven But after Jesus Christ came and spread the gospel, there's no different gospel.

It's the same guy There is of course there is it's a new law. That's that's why Jesus Christ said it is finished on the cross and temple split in two well

Daniel I I would Sebastian We'll get together may as try and set another time up to talk

Daniel I thank you for coming in talking about evidential apologetics. It seems like a whole show ago that we talked about that You guys have an email that you wanted to share with me to court

I will I will offline when we wrap up just don't leave so So folks next week there will be no show.

I guess I should have said that like an hour ago No Show next week, but for Reformation days

October 31st We will have I will not be here. I will be at Texas at a conference

However, Drew will be in he will lead it and we'll have Adam Parker who is the one that that got

Daniel and Matt and myself and Don Don Dan Don Don Williams Donya Williams together and so he's gonna help guide that conversation with with Donya Williams who will talk about basically what maybe what everyone's gonna land on maybe

Fatima's gonna end up saying that she's she's of that view because Don Williams view is this view that to use all of the different ones the

Cumulative view so he kind of takes everything and puts it together. So And I see

Fatima is still here, which means I see her commenting Because that means that she's missing her

Bible study for this. So I don't know if that's good or bad Yeah and so so the 31st will be a topic the last one that we're going to talk about with apologetics

Now in November, we will have November 7th Rob Solberg Talking about Hebrew roots movement things like that We on the 14th.

I'm gonna talk with Chuck who's been in here before with both of our discussions with godless grandma and and then

Lastly, and I'm just gonna meet you Sebastian because we're getting some hissing noise. Sorry But then we then on the 21st of November we will have a fun.

I think what's gonna be a fun debate slash discussion A gentleman who wants to debate this was his topic.

Don't blame me He wants to discuss is Jesus God or the Son of God I offered to debate him on the topic of is

Jesus God or not But he wants the debate is Jesus God or the Son of God and I told him that's gonna be a very interesting debate because the title

Son of God means God So so even if he argues he's the

Son of God He loses it's gonna be weird, but it'll I'm sure be exciting

So that's what's coming up on the show for the next couple weeks. I hope to see you guys Well, I will see you in November, but I hope to see that you guys come back in two weeks

If you've enjoyed the show, please share it with others You can go into on Facebook to the apologetics live group

That's there and have some fun discussion if you want and we will see you next time