Keep sharing good news without ads.
Daniel McAdams joins Andrew to make 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 if he sleeps with a prostitute, but has faith in doing it, then it's okay.
Yeah, it's okay. Okay. I.
I'm gonna ask this again because I want to make sure that I heard you correctly.
Yeah, it's okay. It would be. As long as you have faith on you can do that. We can wait. Wow, okay.
You're saying that as long as we have faith. Whatever we do in faith is not sin.
Yes.
We are live 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.
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 presuppositional 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 six twelve ministries. That's my personal apologetics ministry I live in Jefferson City, Missouri and Six twelve 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.
Yes, 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 Much I preach too much too much is right. Yes. 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 and your evidence me my presupposition. So I'm sure we're gonna have a lot of fun tonight.
Absolutely.
Want to give a shout out here to Fatima who is saying I've been learning biblical hermeneutics via SFE. So that stands for striving fraternity because I'm gonna debate Andrew on cessationism. Ha ha ha.
Well Fatima I will say Mike 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. 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 go on show the all right, let me see if it shows 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.
Positions 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. Mmm. 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.
Right.
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.
You're trying to and I want to make sure I word things properly. By way for folks who don't watch this live and 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 it. 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.
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.
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 you 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 in 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 are they reject the Bible because they don't believe the Bible is 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 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 establish.
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 evidential one. With 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 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 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 really 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 craft 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 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 that the high-minded Presuppositionalists like the Bonson Bantill 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 priests up 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 presuppositional 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.
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. Like it might be good to engage with more Presuppositionalists. I mean even you mentioned Jason Lyle Jason will When he's explaining what 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.
All right. And I do like I see in the comments. Fatima said the evidential apologetic is more empirical in discussion. It is very much empirical and forensic in how it it approaches 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.
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 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 rights. 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 said 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 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 presuppers shut the mouth.
How it 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. The 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 gonna attempt to find a way out of it find an excuse not to believe and As far as shutting the mouth Do 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 the 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 Always showing that the Bible is true and that you're a sinner who is Dan's 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 were 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 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 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 apologetics, 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.
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 would there 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.
Terminism 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 were gonna be and then he picks a world that gives him the greatest glory.
But the question I always ask people this 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 freewill choices were?
And they'll always go. Well, no, well, 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.
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.
Classical evidential apologist I'm more of a More little Precept. 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.
Uh, Greg would be a classical Woody. 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.
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 goal is 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 ten thousand to a hundred thousand years old 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 got to put this one up just as for fun. Fatima says I see evidential projects 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 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 at 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.
For what 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 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. 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 if preceptors will push back against that hard single best 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 supper.
You just have to know some scripture. You 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 PhDs 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 gonna 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. I 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.
Apologetics is founded upon Scripture so you can't jettison Scripture with any apologetic approach. Without jettisoning 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 out of my apologetic toolkit and use 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 Cook 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.
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, you know.
How do you know that?
Because the Bible is true and not just because the Bible says it's true. Because we have history on our side as well. Christianity is the only faith that is historically objectively verifiable.
See you just 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 here 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 comm slash SFE. That's give send go comm 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 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 and 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.
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. That's Because my wife has her heated blanket all as well in the world. They're 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 I had five barrels five 50 gallon drums of hydrochloric acid Float into my yard now as far as we know. The authority is seating 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 for 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 we're 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 501 c3 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 my perspective I don't have information on the anonymous givers. So I.
We.
Yes, driving attorney. We'll 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 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. But 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.
The government is I mean, they're really coming in helping 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 Starlink. 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 Starlink 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. I could work miracles like that and change his mind. He'd be evidentialist like me.
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 Israelite or 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 you go back to when he came in. That's what we did with him. We used his own argument. 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 see here 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.
Obviously Jewish people must be black or Israelites must be black because their hair is 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.
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.
No, 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 saying Between the two views priests up and evidentially says one is superior though.
Can we all admit it's priests up? I.
Can it's 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 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 priest supper.
That's because the Bible is objectively verifiable.
Can't say that I appreciate. I understand where Daniel's coming because he views. If I'm understanding you correct Daniel you're viewing the Bible as.
Part of the evidence, is that correct? Yes, and it's the ultimate evidence. I.
Once 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 and 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 interpreter with them translator and We were telling about they were 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 now 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 believe? 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 say it the Lord over.
Yeah, what would be the ultimate authority there when we're doing apologetics to appeal to.
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 that's safe. 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 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.
Um, 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 a minion 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 than just gonna say where we say it's not saving. We doesn't save. 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?
And 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 reformed 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.
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 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 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. We got at least one more comment here that I have 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 Generalities, and I know where I tend to fall. Dan is a presuppositional is correct Dan craft.
Dan craft. Yes. I know you're saying so here.
Sorry, not Daniel. I'm sorry. Not Daniel. I'll singing Dan, but yeah.
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, you know, there's actually a term for that again I don't know the term if you know what shout it up.
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 preceptors Presuppositional views and 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 Presuppositionalists 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 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 gonna 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 them 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.
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 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.
He I saw him. 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 I'll 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 the yeah.
Yeah, I did some. I was working for Jason for a volunteering form. 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. Don't know that I just traveled to a conference and even though I Didn't have to I took my my pillow with me because 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 270 pound bags because one bag is all books. The other bag is half books half clothes.
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 their 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 got to 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. There's 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 than 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 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.
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 owners will use is an audio recorder and. The primary purpose of that is to capture what are called EVPs that are 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 raise up any noises that that uh, you do hear as well. But yes there's a lot of times actually where.
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 to you 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 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.
By honest he was saying earlier that Mary didn't sin and so on and so forth.
Yeah, how 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 omnipresent. To be able to hear all the prayers.
So based off of the interactions I was having with him and from seeing in the in the comments he definitely would probably fall under a little bit more of 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. Calm 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.
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.
Rob. Rob was the first one to give a guess. I know I'm waiting to see some others. I think I think you know, we'll see because there 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 oh no can he said you can't eat from any and so what does the woman do the woman says to the serpent?
The one says to the 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.
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? Would 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, interesting. He says I'm not orthodox I Don't think so.
Okay.
Sebastian is asking. Can you repeat what church teaches please? 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 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.
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 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 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 in 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 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 meet your your computer there. You're you're still playing the audio bringing Sebastian in Backstage.
So you gotta meet your.
Computer there. You're still playing the audio.
Can you can you mute that?
Sebastian and.
Then we'll try to bring you in again. All right, Sebastian. Can you hear us?
Mary.
Yes, we hear you. Okay, so deep were you able to hear the passage that I read.
No, I was.
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 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 Is the Word of God made flesh that's even greater which which was.
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 he. 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. 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 do you keep adding that Word of God? That's what the Bible says.
Where 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.
Jeremiah.
My whole argument is predicated on the Bible.
Okay, but easy. May I ask a question here?
Yeah, I want to 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.
The 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 on 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, it 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. It explicitly says That what the New Covenant is. It's not saying that there's going to 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 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 Mary.
Now 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.
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 By the power and presence of the Most High.
Okay. So 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?
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 in for a type of Jesus. I wouldn't say Joseph is because there's no passage that says that.
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 a 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.
But 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.
I'm trying to make all. 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. 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?
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 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 confession to a priest.
So my belief just 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.
You lose me a little bit.
They had apostolic 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. 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 to 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.
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 miss it. No, because you can't. 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. How do you know? How do you know I'm taking it out of context?
That's what the early Christians believe. No, it isn't. You keep saying the early church. 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 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, you know when the books of the Bible were officially canonized, 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 you're that's why you're can call Paul's writing here. 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 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 in person second Peter.
We're talking about the gospel books here. Peter didn't write Gospels. So you don't even you believe that all scriptures God's Word. I.
Guess 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.
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 Peter 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 says Simon Peter a bond servant of a Slave and apostle of Jesus Christ.
What are you reading from? I'm reading second Peter. Okay, 1 1 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 3 15. 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 dill 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 of 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.
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 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 I 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 true. You can find purgatory is elsewhere in the Bible, too.
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 be 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.
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 there upon 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. I think what happens in purgatory. You were saved yet by fire now.
Here's the thing now remove the idea purgatory 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, hell exists. It's okay here.
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 part the 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 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 because 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.
So 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. 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 Christestown.
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.
It's not the same Bible. We're talking about two different Bibles. You're trying to come play 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 an old testament.
I'm not doing it. Let's play. Let's let's define terms here. I am what I will bet.
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 and 390 387 393 and 397.
Have you read have you read those?
Have you read about those councils? Cuz I 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 exist.
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.
So you don't answer simple questions. Are you voting for Kamala Harris? Cuz you argue like she does.
No, I'm not voting this election. Because both parties are supporting genocide.
Yeah, well one's gonna be put in Christians in prison. So alright, so you can't answer the question which I can't I just you're I.
Understand your question, but it's it's deceptive because you're acting like the church didn't exist before 90 80 D.
Well, no. The first books to the Bible which did not exist before 90 a day.
Of course it did. Jesus were the Apostles. It was Jesus Christ not speaking to the church and in the New Testament the 12 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 a didn't exist until about a thousand a day with Pope Innocence the second. No.
Yeah, no.
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.
No, 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 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 is 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 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.
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 second 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 I'm going to 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. No, 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 acknowledgment that Jesus Christ is God or does faith also encompass being baptized?
Listening to the church. Okay. How do you define faith?
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.
So what it says in Ephesians 2 8 and 9? It says that that we are saved.
I'll start at verse 8. Okay 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.
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 940 or so and then and then call X. I want to be respectful of your.
I'm willing to debate longer, but I want to be respectful.
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 hath 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 ye 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 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 a 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 a 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 you 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 did 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.
With 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 did.
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 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 in hurt 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.
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.
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. 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 obviously the 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 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.
You're back to those. Jesus Christ said himself that.
Don't 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 aren't baptized then what is that water? It's physical water.
You're like you mean like in a womb.
Like. Water like material water. Whoa. Is it water like in the womb? No, it's like water. Really 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.
Uh.
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?
Uh, 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 that which is born of spirit is spirit. Now. How are we born in the flesh? Just by being 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. I thought you said you were like pressed for time. Why are we playing this? 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 autism.
I'll explain why because there's an instance. I forget which part of the bible, but there's an instance where someone is traveling with one of the apostles.
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 right. Here's the thing. Here's the thing.
This passage here is very clear from the context what i'm doing when i'm when i'm trying to do sebastian and I hope that you'll learn from This because this is how the 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?
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. Well, what's the 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 passages 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 160 000 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.
And that's going to 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 and 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 existed. 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 I want you to to to read what the bible actually says. And not what your church teaches it says it's leading you astray.
Okay, so that seemed like closing remarks. I'll i'll offer my closing remarks and I suppose we can. Is that fine if I just. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead and closing.
And then i'll let you close.
Okay, and then we maybe we can schedule something. Uh, great. I can give you my email or whatever. Okay, uh.
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 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 part of the bible that matched the tradition that that they receive um also on baptism.
There's a lot more proof you you didn't really even say anything against The uh story and acts where uh, they look for water to receive baptism. So that that wasn't even conclusive proof um, so I mean well if we really want to get into a more uh, Nuanced argument which I think would probably be more beneficial instead of jumping because we 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 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 used some sort of Weird logic to say that the water in the woman's womb constitutes 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.
Here we go. That's that's that's why you have to ask me those questions so you later can say oh I asked you all those questions and you said.
Because I want you to 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 1500 years. That wasn't until the invention of the printing press that people had access to the bible and most people were illiterate.
Anyway, you really do you really believe that?
Yeah, and it was thanks to and by the way. It was thanks to catholic monks who had to translate and reproduce the bible by hand so that other people Could could have and particularly parishes and public worship could have access to the bible you just claimed.
Like you when you go back and listen to what you're claiming. You just claimed that we didn't have a bible till the 1500s and yet 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, again, we're not talking about the old books. We're talking about The books of the new testament here that contain 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 until.
History and all facts.
Because you're conflating two different things.
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 is 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.
Yes, you are the church. Let's.
Stick with the definition that the bible means the christian bible not the old testament because otherwise. You're you're just gonna you're gonna confuse the conversation. Let's let's make some conversation.
So 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 but that's not what we're talking about here.
Okay, that's what we're talking about. Was it the bible?
Did that contain the gospel message?
Actually, yes, it does.
The one promulgated by christ.
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 covenant.
I'm talking about the new covenant here.
Yeah, of course because you because the facts don't fit your church.
Uh, no because the old covenant is dead. That's why we're talking about the only pathway to salvation.
Was the new cause genesis the bible?
I don't know. That's that's a semantic kind of question and it's frankly irrelevant to our. Until your church came along you said that.
All i'm doing is doing that. It's wrong.
I'm, just trying to like set set the rules of the debate and 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 someone today has only. 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 i'm okay. What is genesis. 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, sir. That correct. Okay. Did the church exist yet?
Uh, 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 priest. With a 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.
They were they were priests, but that that came up that came after moses had received uh the law.
Not from christ. Well, technically but so let me ask them to try and understand 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. Okay, 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. Do you 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's only contained in the gospel.
But let me try this. Let me try a different deck. What makes the bible scripture?
It contains the Uh instructions. It contains the gospel message.
To that. Okay, and is that what the bible says? About itself.
Um.
I'm, not sure. Why do you have something? Yeah.
Paul says this in second timothy 3 16 and 17 all scripture. Can you say that again second timothy?
Okay three.
16 and 17. Okay. Okay. So it's 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 the New international version. Okay.
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 existed before the uh 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. It addressed what my 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 your court about christ.
And you can.
No, you can't. You use it's an old covenant.
Daniel i'm going to give you I'm going to let you in here. I know you've been commenting i'm going to try to catch up on the on the comments here. Wow you guys are.
Really? Okay.
But do 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. Uh. To to be saved. The catholic church goes over this but it's basically believing in Uh 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 indwell 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. I don't reject the old testament.
I 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 tells you the bible's not the means of salvation. I didn't say it was.
Okay, maybe I misheard I think so but. So well. Good 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.
New.
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 for the why do you want me to pretty much?
You want me to compromise the truth so that 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 test do that does just the jewish bible contain. I'll try this. 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 I agree. But 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.
Why not?
Why wouldn't you want to give us everything right away? 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.
Yeah. Okay, so your old testament books are insufficient salvation. Nobody no.
Person before the time of christ is going to be in heaven. Because they have no way of knowing what the gospel message was. That's not what I said.
I I believe that I believe we already we already covered this in our in our. Uh, I know but you're.
You're contradicting me. No, I didn't. Okay because people understand the gospel in the old testament times.
Well, it's not the same gospel. We're talking about. Oh, so there's different we're talking about a different law here.
So there's two ways to get old law and 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.
Uh, 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? The prefigurement of confession in in in the old testament where they have to take an animal to a priest. Yes, they did. They took an animal they had an animal sacrifice to resolve 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 re why did they need the sacrifice?
Because all of them from their sin in them.
Because it was all them from 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 uh. I 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. It's not what they're doing. It's actually in fact, it's absolutely not what they're doing.
Yes, it is.
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.
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.
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 atonement for their sins. Now 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 through a lamb that would come.
So they do have the gospel.
They don't have the New covenant. The old covenant is dead. They did they did have.
They 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 That 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 going to 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, uh listening. Um, 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 uh 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.
The bible is books. Not not not just of the old testament but of the new testament as well. So it's not a lie.
Yeah, 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 breathed 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 the 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.
Hold on, uh.
My uh, my. My knee accidentally, uh 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 you're saying.
All right.
I 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 got destroyed 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 24 27 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 Attest 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 do you believe you can become god?
No, let's not ask these kind of questions. It's Just so I I don't believe that. But your catholic but your church does. No, uh, I don't I don't accept any of the writings of of. Any of the claimants to the chair from 1962 on forward?
There's a communist revolution and the vatican.
All the. Yeah, so all the all the catechisms that you're going to quote from 1962 and thereafter I I reject. They're not the catholic church. They don't they don't uphold.
So you really don't like this pope this current pope, huh, he's not a pope. He's an anti-pope. He's uh promoting all sorts of perversions and uh heresies so.
So are you without a pope? Right now.
Uh currently the chair is empty. I hold the state of acanthus position. So.
Has a has it ended stopped.
What was that has. It's ended. No, it's just a Extended interregnum and there have been many interregnums before whenever a pope dies. There's an interregnum. So this one's just longer.
But you have a valid pope that was elected that was placed there in apostolic succession. But you deny that. 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 uh, 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 uh, the catholic church still exists. It's within a remnant of the people who uphold its teachings because. That's that's Core crux of what the church is is what its teachings are.
But its teachings are true. Um, but in regards to the scriptural debate we're 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 they're jesus christ. Is not talked about explicitly in in the old testament. Neither are his teachings mentioned. Uh, neither is the requirement for water baptism mentioned in the old testament.
There there's just a lot more precepts. Uh, 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 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 uh 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 uh prophecy books about christ, but.
So why do you think that's christ? Speaking of christ.
Well because of the piercing and uh taking our. Uh taking our sins. Oh, 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 borne by christ. So, you know just son to think about I mean Millions of jewish people are going to 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. 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 and temples split in two.
Well, um daniel, I I would. Sebastian, uh, we'll get together. Maybe 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.
Well, did you guys have an email that you wanted to share with me to coordinate?
I will. I will offline when we when we wrap up just don't leave so, uh. So folks next week there will be no show. I guess I should have said that like an hour ago. Um. There's gonna be no show next week but for uh Reformation day 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. Uh, daniel and matt and myself and.
Don.
Don dan uh, don williams donya williams. Together and so he's going to help. Um guide that conversation with with uh, donya williams who will talk about. Uh, basically what maybe what everyone's going to land on maybe fathom is going to end up saying that she's she's of that view because Don williams view is this uh view that to use all of the different Uh ones the cumulative view so he kind of takes everything.
And puts it together. So, uh, and I see fathom is still here, which means I see her commenting. Um, Because that means that she's missing her bible study for this. So I don't know if that's good or bad.
What's the last one pastor bible study?
Um, and so so the 31st will be a a topic the last one that we're going to talk about with apologetics. Uh now in november we will have uh, november 7th. Rob solberg. Uh talking about hebrew roots movement things like that.
Um, we on the 14th i'm going to talk with chuck who's been in here before. With both of our discussions with godless grandma and and then uh, lastly and i'm just going to mute you sebastian because we're getting some hissing noise, sorry, um,.
But then we uh, then on the 21st Of november we will have a fun. Uh, I think what's going to be a fun debate slash discussion. Uh 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 to debate is jesus god or the son of god. And I told him that's going to 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, uh, he loses it's going to 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. Uh, 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. Uh, 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. Remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of god. See you next time.