Baptism Debate with a Roman Catholic, Part 2

All right, hopefully you guys will get back in and then when enough people get back in I'll explain what happened and Try it again, all right so for those of you who

I'll just say what happened I Accidentally just stopped the broadcast. I was done with my thing

I was looking at my clock on my phone and wasn't even thinking and just saw the stop I was gonna reset my thing.

I just clicked stop with this hand holding this hand and I was you know, click, but I had my hand on it and just hit stop and so The reason

I hate to admit it, but it's true the reason The first vid went bad and we still have it recorded.

Of course is because I just hit the wrong button That's what happened and so it's my fault and I And I apologized tried to get it restarted and I had to redo the whole room

I couldn't just continue with the new room with the old room So I apologize everybody so he's gonna come back in and we'll just continue where we are

Well, I just have part one part two. That's all I will do it. So Again for those who just came back in the fault was mine

I hit the wrong button and hit the stop broadcast when I was intending to Hit the stop on my stopwatch on my phone and my hand here this hand that was done click just automatic and that's what

I did and So that's that's it. Hopefully he'll be back in and I couldn't believe

I did that. Dang it What I'm gonna do is move that away to a different screen so I don't do it again.

You can just blame their old age It just it was just I just was automatic for me it was uh, you know, it's just It was okay.

I'm gonna stop the timer and I saw the word stop up there And so I just click stop as soon as I clicked it.

I went What did I do? So I messed up So we got 18 people in come on get back in folks

Just so you know Matt in the new room, I don't have controls. Okay.

Thanks Give you yeah, I'm embarrassed about control Greek Yeah Okay, there you go, all right

Yeah, I'm gonna put it up there what happened But I blew it and hopefully we'll get back in okay, okay so note

Matt slick And it I don't know how to say it inadvertently or accidentally

Accidentally. Yeah accidentally. I didn't intend to accidentally closed the wrong window

I Have trying to stop the stopwatch

Clicked these stop on the debate window

My apologies The new room is here alone darn it

Hmm All right, don't you know it's gonna yeah It's stupid but What I'm afraid that they're gonna be doing is it's gonna you know, they'll say oh

Matt couldn't handle it he had to cut him off, you know, it's just Yeah, it was

I Couldn't believe I did it. You guys heard me like Yeah, I know What an idiot?

Just okay. Come on back. Come on back. Oh good. He's back. Hey, yes, okay James, I apologize.

I do apologize. It was a problem it just Can't believe

I did that But I did it. So I moved the window up real high to a third monitor.

So it's not where I'm looking now All right Okay, so I what we'll do is we'll keep the first part

I'll change it to part one and we'll have part two and maybe make a note next to it that I accidentally

Closed the window. I just beat myself up about it. Still. Sorry about that. Not intentional.

Just I just screwed up No, I'm just saying that's fine Okay, I guess it's my turn now

Okay, well you brought up back 1631 again and you're doing exactly what

I said that Protestants do you're adding to Scripture that which is not in Scripture and The Bible actually says not to add or take away from Scripture and Martin Luther is guilty of this.

He actually added the word alone After faith so that it would say faith alone because that you know

He wanted the Bible to conform to his theology whereby the Bible doesn't say that the only place where it says faith alone is in James 2 24 and it actually says

The opposite of what Martin Luther believed said a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone but we're not having a justification debate tonight, so we won't get into that and You said that they were saved in Acts 10 44 through 48

Nowhere does it say they were saved and 1 Peter 3 21 unless you're a Pentecostal, you know

That's what Pentecostals they claim, you know, because they said well they received the gifts they're saved, but I don't

Think you're a Pentecostal but 1 Peter 3 21 Yeah, I agree with you that it is it's not just identifying with nose nose, or It's also identifying with the actual event of the flood also and it's identifying with Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection

But I'll get into that in a bit But you know, in fact, you know

We noticed that in the past you've compared baptism to that of I'm surprised you didn't do it again of a ritual or ceremony in What appears on the surface to be

I don't know I guess an attempt to make It appear as though it's a work we do And Then you know, you then go to places in Scripture which speak against salvation through works such as Ephesians 2 8 through 9 or Romans 4 4 through 5

However, what you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the Christian Church Has never taught that baptism is a work we do but instead the church has always understood baptism to be a work

God does to us whereby he infuses us with the grace of a saving faith

This is why out of all the sacraments baptism is the only sacrament which has always been historically been called the quote sacrament of the faith unquote ever since apostolic times

Think about it for a moment What work is the one being baptized doing? The answer is that he or she is not doing anything at all

Instead something is being done to them. Now if you say well the one baptizing them is doing the work

Hey, I don't disagree with that But to be consistent if you're going to claim that because someone else is doing a work on behalf of another

Therefore Because of that the person that did no work received no saving grace

Then one could use the same argument against missionaries to whom bring the gospel message to others

You yourself you bring the message through your quorum website and radio program

So does that somehow mean that those to whom came to believe in Christ through hearing you somehow now have an illegitimate faith simply because You did a work by making that message known to them

Plus, I'm sure you would refuse to take credit for bringing the faith to your listeners.

But instead You'll say it's the Lord working through you so You give all the credit to and glory to God Therefore if the

Lord works through persons to bring the faith Then obviously he can work through persons to bring the waters of baptism as well

Now some persons may ask but what of those cases whereby it's impossible for a person to get baptized before they die

Well to answer that I would have to ask the questioner if it's impossible for God to bring the faith to his elect

If the answer is no Then why assume that it's impossible for God to bring the waters of baptism to his elect before their physical deaths

In fact, we see the Lord miraculously doing just that in Scripture by sending angels to intervene

So as to bring the waters of baptism both in Acts 8 and Acts 10 This is because both faith and baptism are intrinsically connected in Jesus's Great Commission Which we see in Matthew 28 19 through 20 and Scripture makes clear that one does not come into the faith until one is baptized as we see in Galatians 3 27

So therefore believing alone, even if it's a devout heartfelt belief does not mean one has acquired the faith

This is because the faith is not an intellectual ascent of the mind or emotional state of the heart instead

Scripture makes clear that faith is a gift from God in Galatians 3 27 makes clear that this gift is bestowed upon a believer only at the moment that believer gets baptized as For Matt's attempt at disregarding the importance of baptism by claiming.

It's a ceremony Well in many instances a grand summer ceremony is put is put forth whereby one gets baptized, but it's not always the case as an example

Imagine an elderly man on his deathbed in a hospital hospital whereby he has only minutes or even seconds left to live

Now he already believes in Jesus and is repentant of his sins, but has not yet been baptized which means based on Scripture He only has two of the three necessary requirements.

So he lacks the third requirement needed in order to be saved which is baptism Therefore by God's grace someone in that room is moved by God to quietly baptize him without anyone else seeing it happen

Where was the grand ceremony in that there was none and yet that was a valid baptism, which

God recognizes as such We see all throughout Scripture that God works through persons

So in this example God worked through the one doing the baptizing But the elderly elderly man on his deathbed did nothing just as babies do nothing when they're baptized

Therefore the one being baptized is never doing any work So each time Matt slick attempts to claim throughout this debate that baptism is a work

We do then remember that the Bible never says it's a work We do nor has the Christian Church ever considered it to be a work of ourselves instead

It has always been considered as a work God does to us Martin Luther said as much in his own defense of baptism.

He said quote Yes, our works indeed avail nothing for salvation baptism

However is not our work, but God's work unquote We Catholics agree with Luther that baptism is not a work

Baptism is both a gift and a mercy from God which saves Jesus says

Jesus saves us through baptism which scripture directly links to a saving blood Also each time mass like tries to make the unbiblical claim in this debate that baptism is only an outward sign and nothing more

Then remember that the Bible never says it's only a sign instead the Bible makes it clear that Baptism signifies what

God is doing to us by removing our sins and purifying us at that very moment when we receive baptism

Which I will reveal throughout this debate by bringing up those passages from Holy Scripture Which both implicitly and explicitly makes that case and that concludes my statement

Unmute myself each time That's about five minutes Well, let's see go through my notes you brought up James 2 24 if you want to debate

Justification sometime by faith alone in Christ alone I will be willing to but you need to study the context of James 2 its justification before People not before God and so you misapplied it you took it out of context

You said X 1044 does not say they were saved right doesn't say they were saved

But it does say that they were speaking in tongues and glorifying God and I did say in response to that issue that to speak in tongues as a gift given by the

Holy Spirit to the Christians to the church that the people those who are who are saved.

That's how it works They were exalting God and I quoted 1st

Corinthians 2 14 and Romans 3 10 11 and 12 Both those verses teach the unbelievers cannot receive the things of God or foolishness to him

And that they can do no good and exalting God is obviously a good thing So the idea of them exalting

God is speaking in tongues means are a member of the body of Christ they have that spiritual charismatic gift and they are exalting

God which the Bible says unbelievers can't do and furthermore Peter said he had they had already received the

Holy Spirit just as Peter had and so When did you receive it at Pentecost? Was Peter saved then of course he was for the people that are saved.

Of course it worked and so then baptism It was there as a demonstration of what it was the effect that it happened upon them at first Peter 321 you said that The baptism identifies with the water and with the resurrection of Christ Well, we can go through the resurrection of Christ issue another time.

But as I said before there is debate What's the antecedent? Referring to corresponding to that baptism now saves you me

Along with spirits of the high deities. He says and I agree that it's referring back to the ark so it's an issue of entering the ark by faith and this immersion of Faith this immersion and trust into the ark who is

Christ and the one door that they enter into It represents who he is and what he's done that God closes the door and opens the door and Jesus is the door it's a typological representation of That faith in Christ.

That's why Peter says not the removal of dirt in the flesh, but an appeal he talks about that Equating that issue of faith as an appeal to God and he relates it to baptism

Yeah, baptism is a ceremony. I don't think you've heard me say it's necessarily a work. I may have said at that time

May have I don't recall but the issue that I do say is that it's a it's a ceremony I say you teach that baptism is as As Not a work and I say well you're teaching that salvation is by faith and repentance which is keeping the law and Going through a particular ceremony and it's in that ceremony that salvation occurs and we'll get to the deathbed thing

A ceremony is a formal religious or public occasion typically one celebrating a particular event or anniversary.

That's what exactly baptism is It's a religious and public occasion now

You brought up the idea, I don't know why you're doing this you shouldn't be doing this But you said the church has always taught that baptism saves and infuses grace into us furthermore

No, it hasn't I got plenty of quotes to the contrary But this debate isn't about that debate about what the Word of God says you should be focusing on Scripture Not what

Martin Luther says not what John Calvin says not what Zingley says not what your your church says

Does the Bible say each time you venture away from Scripture you're outside of the topic This is what we specifically agreed to debate.

And so you're not not debating the issue You're debating something else and as far as Galatians 327 goes you don't understand the historical context if you read 20 24 it says the laws become our tutor to lead us to Christ in that culture a young boy and some households was given

To a the senior slave in that house that do loss in that house and the do -loss would be the teacher the trainer the tutor and he was a very trusted position and so once the the child the son of the

The house owner once that son had grown and matured then he was given a toga.

He was given a garment to wear Designating the maturity that he had achieved. That's why he says

But faith has come that we're no longer under a tutor for you also to go through faith in Christ Jesus No, there's didn't say faith and baptism or faith and repentance is to faith for you

All were baptized in the Christ have clothed yourself with Christ This is the cultural context about being clothed having that mature aspect and he talks about faith as the means by which it's done

This deathbed thing as an illustration of your doctrine It's really interesting a man is on his deathbed minutes to live.

He believes in Jesus, etc but he's not been baptized and Then you said and so someone in the room is moved by God to baptize him and that's how

Okay, so you just made up a scenario and say see what you're implying is in every single case like that Someone's gonna baptize him because God's gonna say you're gonna say that God's gonna say that baptism is absolutely necessary And so your logic is that God what he'll do is he will make sure he's baptized

This is called begging the question. You've not established that in Scripture as the case You've not established that baptism is necessary for salvation because if it's necessary for salvation

Then your statement would be would be logical But since you've not demonstrated from Scripture that it's necessary Then the statement that you made about the deathbed is really irrelevant and unproven

It's a it's a problem I would suggest that when you get back on that you don't have to quote Luther or Zwingli or Calvin or your church or anybody

It's the issue is what does the scripture say you have to demonstrate as a debate title is?

Is water baptism necessary for salvation show me in the scripture where it's necessary I've answered first Peter 3 21 at 22 16 and We've gone to X 10 44 to 48

So if you got other verses you want to bring up to try and demonstrate that baptism is necessary And please do it on one last thing

When I quoted acts 10 44 to 48 and I showed you the evidence of their salvation you said it doesn't say they were saved

You said doesn't say those words they were saved Well, I can use the same thing with you and say none of those verses you quoted say baptism's necessary for salvation

You have to logically infer and it is as I did with my case That is not necessary next 10 44 to 48

You've got to do the same and demonstrate logically from the scriptures that baptism is necessary for salvation

If you don't demonstrate its necessity Then you failed in your obligation in this debate. All right your turn.

Go ahead okay, well, okay,

Matt's like just said that uh, I Didn't show that any place says that baptism saves but one

Peter 3 21 explicitly says baptism saves and also here originally he said that X 10 44 to 48 says that He said it's it's he pointed to that you with regards to them being saved

But he just admitted that the wording in the Bible does not say that they're saved So, you know mass like has in the past and since he brought that up about X 10 44 will discuss that he's in the past correctly distinguished between an essential type of faith

Which is when one simply believes in God's existence and a fiduciary type of faith whereby one has a heartfelt trust and devotion to God He has said numerous times in the past that at the point when one comes to have this developed heartfelt belief in God Then that person is saved

Yet, there's not one single place in Scripture whereby it explicitly says having only that type of fiduciary belief saves you

Now some Protestants to whom deny the necessity of water baptism like mass like Though they'll go ahead and they'll say they'll point to acts 10 44 through 47 or 48 as Matt just did as proof that Cornelius and those gathered with him were already saved because of their belief and they'll say because of this they were

They received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before being water baptized

The Protestant claim is false personally notice in Acts 10 1 through 2 It says Cornelius and his family were already developed believers in God in fact, st

Peter makes clear in Acts 10 36 to 37 that Cornelius and those gathered with him already knew about Jesus and The good news of the gospel.

So this refused the idea that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon them After st.

Peter began speaking to them because if this was the if this was the case

Then that indwelling should have occurred much earlier when they first came to believe So, what does it mean in verse 45 when it says quote the gift of the

Holy Spirit had been poured out on them Unquote in second. Why was this gift given to them?

I'll answer the first question and then and then Matt can respond After Matt responds then

I'll give an answer to the second question To answer the first question we see the answer in the very next verse

Which is verse 48 and it says quote for they heard them speaking in tongues unquote Speaking in tongues is a gift of the

Holy Spirit. It's a charism, which is also referred to metaphorically as quote baptism the Holy Spirit unquote

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the new covenant water baptism that Jesus instituted in Matthew 28 19 through 20

Instead it's a metaphoric use of the word baptism Just as being baptized by fire is metaphoric and refers to the disciples trial suffering and being mourned in the name of Christ The reason st.

Peter said quote they received the Holy Spirit the same way we have unquote is Because he saw that they were speaking in tongues

We see in Acts 2 that st. Peter along with others had also received these gifts of the

Holy Spirit because they too were speaking in Tongues so st. Peter was only referring to the charismatic gifts of the

Holy Spirit when he'd said those words We don't see Peter claiming that Cornelius received the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit We do however see water baptized believers being said to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them such as in 1

Corinthians 6 19 And we know these believers were previously baptized based on what 1

Corinthians 6 11 says Also another example of baptized believers having the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit is found in Romans 8 9 We know it's referring to those whom have been baptized because st.

Paul says in Romans 8 1 2 1 through 2 that they're quote in Christ and St.

Paul makes it known to us in Galatians 3 27 that a believer is not yet quote in Christ unquote until that believer is baptized

Plus at no time do we see Peter claiming that Cornelius and those gathered with him were saved prior to being baptized

Some Protestants will claim that even if all that is true The fact that Cornelius and those gathered with him were speaking in tongues is evidence that they were in the church and therefore saved

Well, if mass like believes the same as those Protestants do then he needs to give us at least one passage from Scripture Which explicitly says that all those to whom speak in tongues have been brought into the church and are saved

I can tell you already. He won't be able to post that verse from the Bible Because it doesn't exist yet in this debate

I will show you that the Bible explicitly links the washing of baptism to being sanctified justified and saved

Now in regards to the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit when one reads 1 Corinthians 13

Verse 1 it clearly implies that it's possible for a person to not be in God's grace and yet still exhibit the charismatic gifts of the

Holy Spirit For example, the Jewish high priest Caiaphas is said to have prophesied in John 11 49 through 52 and yet He was not saved plus if Matt claims that by Cornelius and the others with With him having demonstrated a gift of the

Holy Spirit is therefore a sign that they were already in the church and saved Then he's falling into the same heretical trap many of today's charismatic renewals so -called false churches make such as those in Pentecostal ism

Which is that one must demonstrate these charismatic gifts in order to be recognized as a being a true Christian So if Matt claims that by Cornelius demonstrating these gifts of the

Holy Spirit as evidence He is he was a true Christian Then just the same it would mean not Demonstrating these charismatic gifts is a sign that a person is not a true

Christian So to all those listening to this debate, I have a question for you Have you ever spoken in tongues?

If not, then based on what some Protestants claim you yourselves must question if you are truly saved or not hopefully

Matt slick won't side with the false charismatic Pentecostal movements by claiming acts 10 to 44 through 47 is evidence that Cornelius and the others were saved simply because they received the gifts of the

Holy Spirit Which was them speaking in tongues because if that's the case

Then will Matt claim next that one must do snake handling as well But seriously, though there are charismatic false

Protestant churches that do snake handling to prove that they're true Christians Anyway, that concludes my statement.

All right No, I did not say That there's no place in scripture that says baptism saves

I didn't say that I said, there's no place in scripture that says baptism is necessary for salvation the reason

I brought that up is because you Wanted me to have a particular wording out of Acts 10 44 to 48 that says that they were saved and I simply brought up Well, there's no place in scripture that says

Baptism is necessary for salvation. So you didn't represent me properly and Fiduciary faith you said there's no place in scripture that says fiduciary faith saves you you can go to Romans 10

Excuse me Romans chapter 4 verses 1 through 5, but particularly verse 5 To the one who does not work but believes his faith is credited as righteousness.

And that's that's a trusting faith Let me get into executing that another time You misrepresented the argument out of Acts 10 44 through 48 you quoted about Cornelius He was already a believer great.

Well, but it says there in Acts 10 is Is that all the circumcised believers?

All the circumcised hold on a sec. I just messed up my I want to read it to you Okay, come on Sorry about that it says all the circumcised believers

Who came with Peter were amazed because of gifts of the Holy Spirit been poured out on the Gentiles Also notice what it says in verse 44

Well Peter was still speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message all these circumcised believers who came

With Peter were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit have been poured out on all or on the Gentiles also

It's not just Cornelius. So you misrepresented the whole context there. What it's saying in Acts 10 44 to 48.

Is that the Jews the Gentiles all the people that were there and be interesting to find out

Do a study to see an estimate of how many might have been there. I don't know But they were exalting

God and they're speaking in tongues I noticed that I said both speaking in tongues and exalting God and you only address the speaking in tongues thing but you're exalting

God out of and for the third time first Corinthians 2 14 a natural man cannot receive the things of God for their foolishness to him and Romans 10

Romans 3 10 11 and 12 says that the unbeliever the natural man or excuse me the

Cannot he does not does no good. He doesn't he can't glorify God He has no good work doesn't seek for God things like that.

He's not capable of exalting God this is something that is enabled by the presence of the Holy Spirit in dwelling a person and the

Holy Spirit in the indwelling sense Occurs with believers not with unbelievers. So what you would have is a

I don't mean to be mocking But I'm gonna say something kind of a zombie kind of a theology here I'm not trying to be insulting but you kind of have someone who's half dead half alive and they actually had 44 to 48 context that He's he's just you know, he's not alive and that he's not been saved

But he's not dead because he's got the Holy Spirit living in him Just like Peter did at the panic at Pentecost speaking in tongues and exalting

God and praising God And they then get baptized because they had already received the

Holy Spirit just as the Apostle Peter had yet They're not saved. So you kind of have this they're not really unbelievers, but they're they're believers

But they're not saved even though the Bible says having therefore been justified by faith Romans 5 1 That they're not justified by faith when they believe you have justified by faith when they go through baptism, which is problematic that are issuing justification and So you didn't represent the whole argument that I presented there about X 10 44 to 48

Let's see my note So he would have us to believe that those were exalting God trusting in Christ speaking in tongues who received the

Holy Spirit just as Apostle at were not saved and that'd be a problem because you'd have to say yeah, they're not saved

They weren't they weren't true believers they were not really justified before God even though they had faith in God and there's

Holy Spirit was working in them and through Them and praising God and all that stuff because you teach water baptism is

Necessary for salvation even though no verse says that and you have to read into the text in order to make it fit your theological assumptions and So he said they weren't being saved part of being baptized.

Don't know my don't know what my note means there He said that I need to produce scripture that says all who speak in tongues are brought into the church and are saved

No, I don't need to produce scripture like that There's no necessity me yet to produce a verse that you admitted doesn't even exist

See, I'm just using your logic with you. You said that I need to do certain things with the Word of God Well, okay.

Look the debate is Does the Bible teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation your job?

if you want to be in the debate your job is to go to the scriptures and show necessity try to argue from the

Scriptures themselves Church Fathers Luther Calvin's Wingly that your your church.

It's irrelevant to the debate topic This is what you agreed to you just stick with the debate. I need to enter into the debate and deal with it biblically

So it's not about the charismatic gifts either though. I love to debate the charismatic gifts I'm a continuationist, but it's about what water baptism and it's necessity for salvation as far as Caiaphas goes

John 11 You related him that issue of receiving the gift of the

Holy Spirit. No Caiaphas was moved by the power of God to prophesy but it doesn't mean he had received the gift of the

Holy Spirit and So you misapplied that you tried to relate them together to say well

Caiaphas did it just like the people in accent 44 to 48 and the fact that you went to Caiaphas and Misapplied Caiaphas tells me this is a problematic area of scripture for you action 44 to 48

You're gonna have to tell us that those who are speaking in tongues exalting God who had already

Received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostle Peter had hey, they weren't Christians. They weren't they weren't saved

Gotta get that water dunked, you know, then then they could be saved and you haven't found any scriptures. I say that's that's the reality

So, uh, there you go. You're up Okay, well you pointed to Romans 5 as justification for saying that believers are in the church

But again, you said exactly what I said that a Protestants do nowhere in Romans 5

Does it say only believing makes one saved or in a church? Also, you just admitted that there's nowhere in the

Bible that you can point to where it says somebody speaking in tongues is saved or in the church and also

You just said that it was by the power of God that Caiaphas was able to do that Well, the Holy Spirit is God and with regards to acts 10 44 through 48

Well again, you're trying to make the case that there they were saved but you're admitting that nowhere in the text itself

Does it say they're saved? So we have to go by what the Bible says also,

I Answered the first question as to what the quote the gift of the Holy Spirit unquote and next 10 44 through 47 meant which again?

Only refers to them receiving the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit such as talking in tongues Not the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit which occurs through water baptism It's also it also did not say their sins are remitted or that they were saved now to answer the second question

Which is why why did they receive those charismatic gifts? We see that the reason

Cornelius and those with him received those care of those gifts of the Holy Spirit Was because it was a sign to the

Jews that had traveled along with st Peter early in that very same chapter We see that God sent a vision to st

Peter and we see in verse 28 that st. Peter connected this vision to the Gentiles whereby st. Peter now recognized that It's acceptable by God that even the

Gentiles should be brought into the church The Jews however that traveled along with st. Peter had not seen this vision instead

God revealed to those Jews that the Gentiles should be welcomed to the

Lord's Church by bestowing the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon those Gentiles This is why we see verse 45 saying quote all the circumcised

Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed Because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also unquote

So it was a sign to the Jews that were there along with st Peter's retelling of those events to the

Jews in Acts 11 Whereby the Jews came to accept the concept of Gentiles being allowed into the church in fact

The implication of Acts 11 17 is that God would have been hindered in giving salvation if they were denied

Baptism, so if anything both Acts 10 chapter 10 and 11

Actually proves the necessity of water baptism in order to enter the church Notice Cornelius in the beginning of the chapter had a miraculous vision of an angel that in that angel

Instructed him to have men go and retrieve Peter for what purpose you may ask Well, we see at the very end of the chapter that it was for the purpose of water baptizing those

Gentiles into the church Which trick which scripture calls the body of Christ? Notice that God sent an angel in both cases in this case to have

Peter baptized Cornelius and in Acts chapter 8 to have Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch

In fact Matt slick on his own radio show this past Monday was speaking to a caller about sprinkling versus immersion

Even though verses 32 and 33 revealed the eunuch was reading Isaiah 53 through 7 7 through 8

Matt himself conceded to the fact that the Ethiopian eunuch had most likely also just finished reading through Isaiah 52 as well

Which near the end of that chapter it begins the prophecy of the coming Messiah Jesus Christ and continues on through chapter 53 the very last verse in chapter 52 prophesied the new covenant baptism by saying quote he the

Lord will sprinkle many nations unquote in His conversation with that caller mess

Lick conceded that this new covenant baptism is indeed water baptism because he himself was making the argument

That it can be done by either immersion pouring or sprinkling of water Also notice that God sent an angel in Acts 8 so as to set the events in motion

Which ultimately leads the eunuch to get water baptized plus? Philip heard the eunuch reading about the prophecy of the

Messiah which included baptism as part of that prophecy Is this just a culmination of coincidences all occurring at once?

Of course not all of these occurrences were guided by the hand of God which shows us the importance that God places on Us being water baptized into his new covenant, which proves that baptism is not just a symbolic act this is exactly what happened in the case of Cornelius and those gathered with him an angel in that situation as well said for certain events to occur whereby the end result was

Cornelius and other Gentiles being accepted and Brought into the church through water baptism, which is why we see

Peter commanding them in the very last verse to be water baptized This is the same baptism which 1

Corinthians 12 13 says brings us into the body of Christ Which scripture calls the church?

This is the same baptism st. Peter says quote saves you unquote in 1 Peter 3 21

It's the same baptism, which the first council of Nicaea in 3 for 25 AD tells us

Within its nice scene pre quote one baptism for the forgiveness of sins unquote

It's the same baptism st. Peter says remove sins in Acts 2 38 It's the same new covenant baptism.

Jesus instituted in 20 Matthew 28 9 19 through 20 Which Jesus himself says makes one into a disciple and it's the same baptism st

Paul received the next 22 16 which is said to have washed away his sins By the way, 1

Corinthians 6 11 uses the same verb for wash which is used in Acts 22 16, which proves

That st. Paul's st. Paul's sins were actually washed away at the moment Aaron a s water baptized

Paul the Greek word in both verses means an actual cleansing of sins not just the covering of sins as many

Protestants believe and That concludes my statement if you'd like to go ahead. Oh and somebody else.

I don't know somebody else just entered and It's like background noise

You know, they can be muted. Let me respond to what you said You misquoted me.

It wasn't Romans 5 was Romans 4 verse 5 Fact that you don't know that is really disturbing

But nowhere does it say you said nowhere does it say that only believing is what saves you?

Well, basically, yeah now not the exact words, but it does say that the one who does not work but believes

That means belief. There's the only thing left you have works. Yeah belief You should do a study sometime on how

Paul uses works and faith and he juxtaposes them constantly but he says

Romans 4 You know the whole thing, but I'll just say with verse 5. Well, actually verse 3

Romans 4 3 and Abraham believes God it was credited him as righteousness. This is before baptism and He was in the

Old Testament covenant and his faith there was reckoned as As being justified and then he goes on to say two verses later to the one who does not work

But believes his faith is credited as righteousness now We have before the New Covenant and after the

New Covenants instituted and both are saying the same thing and yes That is a good place for showing that faith alone is what saves

Because it's faith in what Christ has done not what we do. And yes, we do baptism. It's a ceremony and Your deathbed conversion thing, of course rests on whether or not you can prove that water baptism is necessary You have not done that.

This is you know, it's a difficult thing for you to do And It's right you and to Revisit act 10 44 to 48.

You're right. Nowhere in the text of that pericope doesn't say the words they were saved but we know that saved people in scripture speak in tongues and they exalt

God and they have the Holy Spirit and We know that those are characteristics of being saved

They're not the characteristics of being unbelievers And now if you want to say that unbelievers can speak in tongues show it to me if you want to say unbelievers

Truly exalt God show it to me If you want to show me how the unbelievers have the gift of the

Holy Spirit show it to me Now you if you're gonna do that I would suggest that you do a word study on the phrase gift of the

Holy Spirit You'll find out and it doesn't occur with Caiaphas God's very precise and how he words things you should study the word and you'll see it's in reference to believers

And so your Caiaphas reference doesn't work and your misapplication of it into acts 10 44 to 48 is misapplied as well

And you said the indwelling of the Holy Spirit occurs through baptism. That's what you said Okay, you have this habit of saying

Matt where's exactly say these words Okay, I'm gonna ask you where's it say the indwelling of the

Holy Spirit occurs through baptism. Show me that in scripture It doesn't say that because we already have they had already received the

Holy Spirit before baptism in act 10 44 to 48 So you're saying that the people who in acts 10

Were were not saved even though they were exalting God. They were speaking in God. They received the Holy Spirit They were not forgiven of their sins

That's what you're saying and you made so I didn't quite get it acts 10 through 11. You said proves your point

No, I disagree with that And I'm glad you listened to my radio show that's good I hope you continue to do so the

Ethiopian eunuch and Isaiah 52 that's a different topic about the mode of baptism Anyway, I certainly admit that baptism follows salvation

The Covenant sign of baptism is a public demonstration of how God saved the person at the very least

It's a symbol but I also believe there's a covenant sign and the reason I do is because Colossians 2 11 through 12 talks about baptism and Paul relates it to circumcision having been circumcised with a circumcision made without hands having been buried with him in baptism and so He relates these now exactly to what extent the relationship occurs

That's another discussion and something I'd like to discuss sometime because I don't know the exact relationship But I do know this that that circumcision was a covenant sign and I affirm that Baptism water baptism is also a covenant sign.

I'm Presbyterian So I include the infants in that not for salvation But as a covenant sign and so circumcision did not save anybody but it guaranteed them certain covenantal rights and I would carry that over to Circumcision even for infants.

No, that's another topic A lot of Protestants aren't going to agree with me on that and that's okay but this is to demonstrate to him as he says

Protestants believe this and that that I don't always agree with the majority of Protestants say And so to continue anyone who rejected the covenant sign rejected the covenant

And so I believe baptism it's a very least a symbol of that covenant sign the covenant being justification by faith alone in Christ alone and In actually 216 now, why do you delay get up and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on his name?

So what washes away your sins? water Or calling upon the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ. That's show it to me. You got to ask So you when I went you indicate so down here we go.

Now you've talked about having people ask questions I'm open to that if they want to do that right now and fire questions Are you open to doing that right now?

You want to have people ask questions? Are you want to say something else and then I'll respond to it or what?

Well, no at this time I mean, I'd like for us just to continue a one -on -one debate unless you want to pause now and we continue next week

Well, I got other things coming up next week. I think somebody else wants to debate me on something else So we're still trying to work on something.

I kind of forgot it was but someone said they wanted a piece of me On those exact words. I said well, let's do it the week after so we'll see what happens there

But if you want to continue great if you want to ask me some questions, that's okay I'd ask you some questions or if you because you brought it up you people have questions.

I'm open to that as well so The thing is I kind of like to go ahead and just continue the way we've been doing it because the the ways we the

Way, we've done it before, you know We we get into sort of arguments and we interrupt each other and so forth and like I said,

I don't think that's very edifying to those that's Listening or viewing Let's do it for there.

How about another 15 or to the bottom of the hour? How about that under 20 minutes and then we'll open it up to questions.

What do you say that? Okay, that sounds good. Okay Okay. So yeah, you said that you believe that baptism is a covenant sign

Well, the fact of the matter is baptism is linked to Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and There's numerous verses whereby it

Actually goes ahead and makes the case that the grace of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is conferred to the person that's getting baptized at the moment of baptism

Meaning entering into the new covenant Now many Protestants usually cite the thief on the cross as an example against the necessity of water baptism

But it's a false example because the thief on the cross had not gone to heaven that day It's strange in fact that you know

Protestants don't realize that fact we Catholics know that I don't know why Protestants don't but You see instead the thief also known as st

Dismas went to the place all the Old Testament Saints had gone to which is called Abraham's bosom

It's always been understood since apostolic times that any place other than heaven is considered hell

Even earth itself. He did not descend to hell of the dam But to the place in hell also called

Hades or the limbo of the fathers Which is the prison described in 1 Peter 3 18 through 19?

It was the waiting place of the just of the Old Testament Who could not enter heaven until after the

Savior came? So one can say that God saved the Old Testament Saints in the sense that they dodged

Gehenna Which is the eternal hell also referred to as the lake of fire However, the

Old Testament Saints weren't saved in the sense that the gates of heaven was open to them this is because they needed to wait until Jesus's sacrifice on the cross so that they could receive the forgiving grace under his new covenant and In that way they could then enter into heaven, but only after Christ first bodily ascends to heaven himself

So one can say that the sins of the Old Testament Saints were forgiven due to the repentance But their sin debt was not forgiven because Jesus had not yet paid the penalty for their sin debt on the cross

Also, even though the grace of Jesus's new covenant went into effect at his death as we see in Hebrews 9 15 through 17

That grace was not applied to the thief on the cross at the moment The thief died because he

Jesus did not yet formally institute his new covenant by his word in Matthew 28 19 through 20

Remember that the preceding passage Hebrews 9 15 through 17. We learned that this new covenant is like a will

Which would only take effect when the one who drew it up has died However, as we see with any will what's recorded in the will is not dispensed to a later time shortly after one's death

Therefore it's at that moment in he in Matthew 28 19 through 20 that Jesus formally

Instituted his church under his new covenant and made both receiving the faith and receiving baptism

Binding on all persons thereby making it necessary that a person must believe and be baptized in Order to get into heaven and enter his church

So Jesus was at that moment dispensing the grace from his new covenant by formally instituting what the what he?

Effectuated at the moment of his death on the cross, which is his new covenant itself

Again we see this is how it's done with any will Now Protestants like Matt Slick may object and say it doesn't say quote baptism saves in Matthew 28 19 through 20

But it said it just says it makes one a disciple well my response would be that it does not have to say baptism saves in that passage because it says elsewhere in Scripture that baptism saves

And therefore the reader must consider reading that particular verse in context with the rest of Scripture. Namely 1

Peter 3 21 and Mark 16 16 Which again explicitly says baptism saves

So since baptism under the new covenant was instituted after Jesus's resurrection by our

Lord himself by his word Then it was not Binding on the thief when the thief died

The thief on the cross was promised by Jesus that he'd be with him in paradise on that day But Jesus did not go to heaven on that day

Jesus went to Sheol also known as Hades which is comprised of an upper and lower level Abraham's bosom being the upper and the rest of Sheol being the lower to further prove the point that the good thief did not go to heaven on that day of Jesus's crucifixion

There is the fact that on Easter Sunday when Mary Magdalene met with the risen Lord He told her quote do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to my father in heaven

Unquote therefore the parrot the paradise Jesus was speaking of obviously was not heaven

The reasons the reason Jesus referred to Abraham's bosom as paradise is for two reasons first because it is not a place of torment unlike the lower portion of Sheol and Like the

Lake of Fire which again is called Gehenna Secondly because Jesus who is God himself would be there proclaiming the to the

Old Testament Saints the mystery of the gospel Later on after Jesus's resurrection when

Jesus was ascending bodily into heaven He would then lead them all into heaven to dwell with him as we see in Ephesians 4 8 through 10

So you might ask well Then how did all those Old Testament saints such as Noah Abraham Moses David and on up to the thief on the cross eventually end

Up in heaven if they had not been water baptized under the Lord's New Covenant Well, the error is in the question itself

So it's it's to assume that prior to entering heaven. They were not water baptized We see after Jesus's resurrection that these

Old Testament saints were seen rising out of their graves and walking amongst the people in Matthew 2751 through 53

So because of this there would have been plenty of opportunity for them to receive water Baptism under the

New Covenant prior to being taken into heaven by Jesus on the day Jesus ascended bodily into heaven

Now if Matt Slick or any other Protestant objects to this by saying the Bible doesn't say the

Old Testament saints received Baptism after they had risen out of their graves Then my response would be that the

Bible doesn't say that it doesn't list by name all those at Pentecost that received baptism either

Nor does the Bible have to explicitly do so Instead the Bible would simply need to reveal to us that baptism under the

New Covenant Forgives sins as we see in Acts 2 38 that it saves as we see in 1 Peter 3 21

That it washes away sins as we see in Acts 22 16 and that without it One cannot enter into heaven as we see in John 3 5

Therefore we know based on those scriptures along with others The Old Testament saints would have had to receive the waters of baptism in order to be taken into heaven by Jesus Plus based on those same scriptures

Anyone living after the New Covenant was instituted would also need to receive water baptism in order to enter into heaven

Those very same scriptures refute the idea that one can receive salvation by only believing alone

And that concludes my statement if you'd like to go ahead yes,

I would You're good. You're quitting more scriptures.

That's good. Oh, man Both time is sick. Oh Where's my mouse go?

Sorry, it left my speech recognition program on you may see me speaking I turn myself off and then I do my speech program and repeat what you say for notes, okay, so Just getting down some notes here in some context, okay so Excuse me.

He said you said that baptism is linked to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and that Grace is given when you're baptized

Doesn't say that in Scripture that grace is given when you're baptized. That's just a Catholic doctrine. You're reading into the text He brought the thief of the craw on the cross

You're right, he didn't go I agree with you didn't go to Heaven that day until probably after Ephesians 4 10 11 12 talks about having

Probably after he had gone and made proclamation on the first Peter 3 18 and 19 Then he took them up into to heaven.

That's what that's there's debate on that. But nevertheless, that is irrelevant to this discussion because the issue of the thief on the cross is whether or not he was forgiven without being baptized and Jesus says today you'll be with me in paradise.

And so which you know, Abraham's bosom, that's fine And you got to tell me what the name of that thief was by tradition because I know that It'd be fun to just know that name even if by tradition

And so was he forgiven was the thief forgiven? Well, I'm glad you you quoted or you referenced

Hebrews 9 15 to 16 Also, you got to go to Hebrews 8 13 But the issue is that the

New Covenant is ratified at the death of Christ and that's what those verses talk about So under the New Covenant baptism is necessary for salvation

You would have to say and you kind of hinted that a little bit with the Old Testament sage, which I'll get to it's problem for you, but so he had not been baptized and he died and so He you know, it would be with Christ.

So that has to mean that he was saved yet He was not baptized because Christ died before the thief died.

And so the New Covenant was in effect and that's that's a problem limbo Okay whatever

So now that the resurrected people I'm not sure I understood you properly so I may misrepresent you here not intentionally if if I do

It's I apologize. I'm trying to understand what you say. You do speak quickly, but I'm trying to put my notes in order

You said something about the 500 were that were resurrected were now baptized Nothing in Scripture says that that's just reading into the text and again, you're not going with what just that Scripture says

And reading it in his context and things like that But were there only 500 Saints in the

Old Testament covenant time? Obviously, there's a lot more than just 500. So if just those 500 were baptized

What about the all the others who were not resurrected? You know the thousands upon thousands of faithful Jews from the thousands of years earlier

More than 500. So did they go to heaven without being baptized if the resurrection is a necessity?

the resurrection is a necessity if you're saying something like that and an issue of baptism is concomitant with that and That would be an inconsistency on your part, but I probably misunderstood you.

So I know maybe I did So was the thief in the on the cross forgiven when Jesus says you'll be with me in paradise

With it was Jesus saying you're not forgiven right now, but you will be and if so, show me that in Scripture And so I really talked about the thief ratification

The grace has not applied to the thief on the cross because a new covenant had not yet been instituted by the word That's what you said.

You referenced Matthew 28 19 through 21 I think door 20 about you know be baptized named the

Father Son Holy Spirit That Great Commission doesn't talk about it being an act of salvation or what saves them you use that to get out of context

That's not what it says And he said grace grace wasn't applied to them as if grace as a substance was used word infused

It's another problem, and I know Catholic soteriology on that doctrine, but nevertheless

He said that grace was not applied to the thief on the cross because the new covenant had not yet been instituted by the word

Well, that's wrong the new covenants instituted by the death Rome Hebrews 9 15 through 16.

That's what it says. It does not say by that word out of Matthew 28 So you made a mistake there and that disproves your point on that He said the covenants will be like a will and a will is not dispensed until person's death

Yeah Exactly what Hebrews 9 15 through 16 was referring to I would agree that after the death of Christ for goodness

It was dispensed to that thief Who then died after Christ did even in first Peter 3 21

It doesn't even say that baptism is necessary just one of my notes or for a couple of context was you going to mark 16 16?

Which does not explicitly say that baptism saves what it does say is he who believed and is baptized shall be saved

But he who disbelieves shall be condemned. It doesn't say but if you're not baptized You won't be saved.

That's what it doesn't say that it says if you don't believe The issue is on belief because it is true that he who believes in his baptized will be saved.

That's true It's also true that he who believes and goes to church will be saved It's also true that he who believes and endures to the end will be saved

But you see you got to understand that belief is a thing of justification. We go to Romans 3 28 Romans 4 5 we can go to X Galatians 2 16 to 21 we go to several verses and talk about that issue.

You went back to act 22 16 We already addressed that and I'll and I'm go quickly. I'm trying to hog time

We went to X or assuming John 3 5 And you said John 3 5 Necessitates the idea that you can't go to heaven without being baptized in X X and John 3 5

Jesus answered truly truly I say to you unless one is born of water and the spirit He cannot enter into the kingdom of God now

My position is that what the water there is is the water of the womb and I will say that I'm going to give

Undefended but I'm going to say that majority of the Protestants don't hold to that position Nevertheless, I don't go with what a majority says or a minority says

I go with what I think the scripture says verse 4 Nicodemus said to him. How can a man be born when he's old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb

Can he have he born Kenny? womb and Then Jesus says well that was born of water and he must be born of water and the spirit

Then he's then Jesus says that was his born the flesh is flesh that was his born of the spirit of spirit It certainly looks like the case to me is he's saying there's a birth.

That's natural and a birth That's spiritual birth of the water and a birth of the spirit. That's what I see it as being you don't have to agree but that's my position and so It's not because I'm a calcitrant, but it's because I read that that's what it looks like to me

That's what it looks like to me. So that's my position and So that's not that doesn't convince me at all and may convince others your position

Particularly Catholics who will only believe with their own the Catholic Church tells them to believe about that verse But that's my position out of that contextually.

All right, you know what? It's 725 We won't be able to finish unless you want to do one minute each You want to do it?

How about this? How about this? Why don't you want to do a two -minute conclusion? I'll do a two -minute conclusion and then we'll take open up the questions to anybody.

It's gonna suggest It sound good Well, I'll tell you what, why don't we just why don't we just postpone it and if not next week some other time doesn't make any

Sometime we got the whole year, you know, so let's just postpone it and we'll continue another time. We're right here

Well, I mean if you want to continue with the debate i'm i'm happy with that if you want to continue I just thought others might want to have questions because that's generally how it works

And you see that's fine. Let's do that then let's take questions then and what and what we'll do is Would you agree we could postpone the debate and continue another time?

Uh Well, uh, we could have another debate But yeah, we'll take questions now and then we'll we'll postpone the debate for another time

Unless you want to continue the debate i'm happy to continue it. Well, you want to go for the 10 minutes then?

All right. I want to Ask questions. I think it's fair that all the debates i've been people get to ask questions

Well this that's what i'm saying We could go ahead and let them ask questions and then uh, we'll postpone the debate between you and I for another time

And we'll let people ask questions now. Are you okay with that? What do you mean postpone I mean You're having the debate right now and you guys have gone back and forth now for You know over an hour now hour and a half.

Well, I messed up. Sorry But I mean this is the debate right here,

I don't know why you want to postpone I don't want to postpone anything i'd like to continue the debate between mass

Go ahead continue go ahead continue. That's what you want. Okay All right writing.

Okay All right. So, um All right. So yeah, well with regards to the 500.

Um, I don't know. I mean jesus went to abraham's bosom How do we know he didn't baptize them there?

Of course, you'll say well the bible doesn't say that well doesn't have to um And also hebrews 9, uh 15 through 17 never says that it was instituted

It was effectuated. I don't disagree. It was effectuated at the moment. Jesus died But jesus instituted it in matthew 28 19 through 20 by his word um

And you know, not only that but you know you and some other protestants i've heard before You falsely claimed that the apostle paul did not believe in baptismal regeneration because he was thankful that he baptized only the households of chrispas and gaius and one

Corinthians 1 14 You and other protestants will also claim that if paul believed and taught that baptism was absolutely essential to the new birth

His failure to baptize more than two people in corinth Is an odd thing to boast about You know protestants will also cite paul's declaration that quote christ did not send me to baptize

But to preach the gospel unquote in 1 corinthians 1 17 as evidence that baptism is not connected to the gospel

But what these protestants Critics fail to appreciate. However is the fact that in the preceding verses paul lamented about dissension in the church caused by neophytes

Inappropriately pledging their loyalty to the person who baptized them As we see in 1 corinthians 10 through 14

Paul was thankful that he did not have many believers pledging themselves to him in this way

Because he only baptized a few Paul is not denying

How very important baptism is rather he is denying that baptism bonds the candidate to the person performing it

Likewise paul's report that quote christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel unquote in 1 corinthians 1 17

Does not prove that the act of baptism is has absolutely no connection to the gospel that paul preached

As an example Jesus preached the necessity of baptism in john 3 5 and he oversaw many baptisms without personally baptizing anyone as we see in john 4 2

Therefore saint paul's decision personally to take part in only a few baptisms does not disconnect baptism from the gospel any more than Decision to only personally disciple a few people would disconnect discipleship from the gospel as seen in matthew 2019 28 19 besides Protestants making false claims about saint paul

Some of them make the false claim that there is more than one new covenant baptism And they do this as an attempt to deny that water baptism is the one true baptism under the new covenant

They'll falsely make the claim that it's not water baptism that is being mentioned in a particular verse, but some spirit baptism instead some of them will use what jesus said and About the woman at the well not realizing that jesus was only speaking metaphorically

Some examples whereby they falsely claim. It's not speaking of water baptism is with titus 3 5 in galatians 3 27

They'll also confuse the terms quote baptism of the holy spirit unquote and quote baptism of fire

Unquote as if those are actual new covenant baptisms, which they are not Again, there are metaphoric words the first referring to charismatic gifts and spiritual

Guidance received from the holy spirit as seen in acts 1 8 Galatians 5 22 through 23 acts 10 44 through 46 acts 19 6 verse 16 acts 8 14 through 7 the second fire

Which refers to suffering trials and martyrdom in the name of christ seen in 1 peter 1 7 1 peter 4 12 to 13 mark 10 38 and 39 hebrews 12 6

And 12 11 matthew 20 22 through 23 and finally luke 12 50

If any protestant attempts to claim there's more than one baptism under the new covenant Then that would be a denial of ephesians 4 5 a denial of the nicene creed

And a denial of what the church has taught for 2 000 years. They explicitly tell tell us that there's only one

Baptism ephesians says this in the context of there being one god Therefore to say there is more than one baptism under the new covenant is like saying there is more than one god

Or that our lord didn't just bring only the christian faith, but also brought other non -christian faiths that are salvific

Just the same to falsely suggest There is one new covenant baptism that saves and other baptisms under the new covenant that do not

Is the same as saying there is one god. There is one god the father that saves

But two other gods jesus and the holy spirit that do not Now I could understand perhaps a mormon or jehovah witness

Holding such a false position with regards to there being more than one new covenant baptism

However, I can't understand how other protestants to whom claim to be trinitarians Can hold that position based on what ephesians 4 5 says

By claiming there's more than one baptism under the new covenant Then the trinitarians are simply giving ammunition to persons to whom reject the holy trinity

A non -trinitarian can then use ephesians 4 or 5 against the protestant trinitarian based on That own protestant trinitarians denial of what ephesians 4 or 5 clearly says

If you want to go ahead and respond all right, um

So you said how do we know jesus did not baptize people in paradise Uh, well, how do we know jesus didn't go to jupiter and uh talk to some uh, jupiterians there

The bible doesn't say it so it's possible That kind of of logic is problematic if you're going to make a case for the topic at hand, which is

Does the bible teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation? You need to go with what the bible actually says not with what it does not say

And then say well, it doesn't say they weren't baptized So therefore we can say that they were or anything like that.

That's that's not a good argumentation of procedure You need to go with what it actually says And you went to matthew 20 19 20, you know baptized in the father son holy spirit

And you call this the ratification of the new covenant And that in that baptism is the dispensing of grace.

None of that is in scripture. You haven't shown that to be the case in scripture You've not done that You've asserted it but assertions don't make something true

Any more than asserting that people were baptized in paradise by christ doesn't make it so You got to show scripture either show us from the inspired word of god what god actually decided to have written down through his apostles and prophets

And I want to see what it says and remember the debate is on does the bible teach it not church fathers

Not what your church not my church not Councils does the bible and so for you to continue to go off to off topic and off track

Is just a waste of our time in in relationship to what the debate's supposed to be about Hebrews 9 15 through 16 for this reason

He is the mediator of a new covenant so that since a death has taken place for the redemption Of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant those who have been called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance

For where a covenant is there must have necessity with the death of the one who made it And this death of the covenant maker is where the new covenant as I've spoken about here is instituted

And so that's where we see it instituted not in the great commission Um, because it's talking about the covenant right there specifically and then christ's death in relationship to it

That's why we know that that's that's what it's talking about. That doesn't occur in matthew 28 18 Through 20 which you have several times misappropriated

Um, so let me see I get my notes here because I thought it was really interesting. Uh You made it you brought up.

I didn't bring it up out of first corinthians Uh, you know that uh, paul Did not want to baptize people because he might follow him, you know

And that paul came to preach the gospel not to baptize. Well You brought it up, but if the gospel includes baptism, then why would he say?

uh You know the gospel that says for corinthians 15 1 through 4 1 through 5 if If that gospel the euangelia the good news necessitates baptism, then why would he say

I came to not to preach the gospel Which baptism is part of? right

You know, I didn't come to excuse me. I didn't come to baptize But to preach the gospel which includes baptism

I didn't come to do that But I came to preach about doing that or not doing it, but i'm doing it But i'm not going to tell you to do that.

It wouldn't make any sense uh, and what you would be saying is that the the heresy of the

Individuals who you're calling it wrong. You said it was wrong. It was really interesting because you were saying that um

That you know, the people were following paul. I'm a paul. I'm of a polis And so they were giving reverence and honor to someone other than jesus

Which I find to be most interesting because in my notes there I have mary the pope or any particular saint

Written in there, you know like loyal to people and giving homage to people like paul and paul didn't want that to happen

Mary pope, uh any particular saint you might want to put in there as well Anyway, so what you're what's really interesting is that you're saying that he disobeyed the call of god according to your logic

That baptism is part of that procedure and part of that system of saving people And so he stopped baptizing them because of what they did

So paul then succumbed to the heresies from your position Of people and then violated his commission to preach the gospel, which you say commit includes baptism

But paul said I didn't come to baptize. I came to preach the gospel so you have a problem here your your own, uh words just they they

They just hung you. Um As you would have paul disobey the command of christ for the sake of people, uh, things like that um

And you went to john 3 5 you didn't address my my analysis of john 3 5 in its context

You just assume that john taught that water baptism is necessary, you know I guess he born again, but water in the spirit

I gave you the context and you didn't address or refute that so it doesn't really do much Uh, you mentioned titus 3 5 really fast

I don't remember the context was glacian 3 27 have already dealt with and the tutor and the Do lost a slave and you know what that means?

um And I I will say congratulations on the verbal carpet bombing That you uh, you underwent there with scriptures just threw out a bunch of stuff

I mean, I couldn't even write them down And it was really good. I like that except that quoting a bunch of verses at rapid Succession for several seconds doesn't prove anything.

It just other than you can read a list of scriptures Because I think you're reading it and if you weren't you memorized praise god

But either way the point's made, uh, if you want to really discuss and debate this you need to get down to individual scriptures

And look at what they actually say not a barrage of scriptures um He said the church taught the same thing for a thousand years who gives a flying rip what the church

Taught for 2 000 years, excuse me. That's not what the debate's about. And by the way, it's not true what you said But that's not what the debate's about You need to stick with it what the bible says not with what you think the church says it doesn't matter

And you misrepresented the historical facts anyway um I wasn't discussing anything about uh more than one new covenant baptism.

I didn't bring it up You keep bringing up things. I don't argue and I don't affirm Uh, and you're not apparently dealing with the issue a topic at hand

Which is is water baptism necessary for salvation? And you got to show that it's necessary necessary that you cannot be saved without it

Act 10 44 through 48 proven to be a real problem with you. We haven't even gone into other verses Uh, which be all also be problematic, but that's maybe the further time

I've not promoted justification by faith on christ alone because that's not the topic of the debate I've simply responded to your assertions about your claim that water baptism is necessary, but you've not made the case that it's necessary Because the title the debate topic is is water baptism necessary for salvation.

You have to establish that it is necessary You've not done it. You've taken verses out of context. You've Only read parts of verses in order to support your position

You've failed to deal with the logic of some of your positions I deal with the issue of paul disobeying god in order to not baptize people

Your your uh, your logic your problems are problematic anyway uh your turn

Let's let's just go tell For another 10 minutes. Okay, give people at least 10 minutes to ask questions and then we're done

All right, let's just do that because that's quite a long time hour and a half at the very least go ahead Okay.

All right. Well, yeah. Well what you said about paul completely ignores everything i've said about paul

Uh the context of what I said and also you said that there wasn't any grace with regards to matthew 28 19 well, obviously becoming a

Being made a disciple that's by the grace of god It's impossible to be made a disciple unless it's through the grace of god not to mention

It's the same baptism that's spoken of throughout the scriptures whereby it directly connects baptism to jesus this

Sacrifice on the cross whereby we receive the grace of remission of sins Now we catholics

The fact that you don't believe any grace Is associated with baptism water baptism isn't surprising uh, but we catholics and That's because you don't believe in you know, you believe it's symbolic but we catholics we don't disagree with you

We catholics agree that there definitely is symbolism in baptism But the protestant view of baptism being only symbolic simply isn't found in scripture

There aren't any verses that speak of baptism as merely symbolic And there are several that teach the exact opposite for example

The old testament is replete with prefigurements of the holy spirit's role in saving us in baptism

For example the spirit hovering over the waters at the dawn of the world in genesis 1 2 Noah's ark in which salvation of the on the ark came through water

As 1 peter 3 reminds us and in which the dove crosses the water to show that the flood is over in genesis 8 11

Departing of the red sea in which salvation once again came from passing through water in which saint paul would later call a kind of baptism in 1 corinthians 10 1 through 4

The mosaic law which used ritual washing as a way of signifying cleansing from sins Naaman's healing in 2 kings 5 in which a skeptical leper is healed by submerging himself in the waters

Yet he initially objected At the seemingly foolishness of a miraculous cleansing through the waters

And the new testament as we'll see has several passages Explicitly describing baptism in the way that the catholic church claims not the way protestants claim

Let's compare the protestants claims with about baptism with what the bible teaches For example question one is baptism necessary for salvation again

A small number of protestants believe baptism symbolizes that a person has been saved But is not a means of salvation

However scripture explicitly tells us that baptism saves as we see in 1 peter 3 21

Therefore scripture itself refutes the protestant position and instead supports the catholic position question two

What did saint peter say about baptism in his pentecost sermon? In his sermon at pentecost protestants claimed that peter urged those who had repented and believed in christ to be baptized

Not that baptism was necessary for salvation, but as a testimony that they had been saved However, the truth is that nowhere in peter's pentecost sermon

Does it say anything about baptism being a quote testimony unquote or that his listeners quote had been saved unquote prior to being baptized?

Instead he tells them to get baptized for the forgiveness of their sins in acts 238 And he makes it clear in verse 240 that by doing so they're saving themselves

Question number three does baptism wash away sins as I mentioned before protestants attempt to use the thief on the cross luke 23 through 39 through 43 or they'll claim those gathered in cornice's house

Acts 10 24 through 48 all experienced salvation without the necessity of baptism

However, the truth is that the bible doesn't make that claim As an example, we see that saint paul doesn't claim that his sins were washed away on the road to damascus

Even though he became a believer in christ while on that road rather As his own conversion story attests it's through baptism that his sins got washed away as we see in acts 22 16 now

Matt slick attempted to claim falsely claim That somehow the quote calling on jesus name in verse 22 16 by which paul

Through his belief alone washed away his sins, but matt's claim is completely falls apart

When you read what occurred to saint paul prior to him being baptized This is because we see in acts 9 11 that saint paul had already become a believer and is already praying to jesus

Also in acts 22 10 through 11. We see it saying that by faith

Quote faith unquote saint paul was awaiting to be told what his assignment was to be

And we also see him calling on the name of the lord as well So all of that occurs before acts 22 16

It occurs before he got baptized yet His sins were not forgiven until he got baptized

In greek the passage in acts 22 16 literally records anna saying quote be baptized and wash away the sins of you unquote

The phrase quote having called on the name of the lord unquote is a qualifier added to the paired actions of baptism and washing away sins

Therefore all of this evidence when taken together completely refutes the claim matt attempts to make

Which is that saint paul's sins were washed away by only believing and by calling on jesus name in acts 22 16

By the way, the greek word for wash in the verse is apollo which again refers to An actual cleansing of sins not just the covering of sins

It uses that same verb in 1 corinthian 6 11 Which it says quote at the same time they were washed they were sanctified and they were justified unquote therefore connecting water baptism to both sanctification and Justification this is because at the moment of baptism

One is regenerated sanctified and justified all at once That concludes my statement

There's a problem with you quoting 50 verses at a time And at rapid fire because i'm not able to respond to each and every thing

And that's a that's a problem It's one of the things I don't like doing with people is quote 15 verses And I like to stop and look at each one in context to see if it's saying what you say it says

And the fact that you do that and that you continue to misquote verses x 22 16 first peter 3 21

You stop as you did in x 22 16 With uh, you know And you even went into the greek get up and be baptized wash away your sins

But you don't read the rest of it calling on his name I don't even know if you've ever done a study on what calling on his name means in the old testament because it's an old testament phrase

Has to with worship adoration the seeking of forgiveness and the whole bit It's a specific phrase call upon the name of the lord is another specific phrase and it's used this way

So he's alluding to the old testament necessity here of calling upon god And this is who they would call upon in the old testament to be saved

And so, you know luke is talking about this you should You should examine that in the context good people get baptized wash away your sins

Calling on his name in the process of calling on his name That's how your sins are forgiven not being dunked in water or having water poured upon you water does not do that The blood of christ is what washes us cleanse clean.

The blood of christ is what cleanses us of our sins not water Water baptism is a covenant sign

We went over this. Uh, let me go back to my notes here You misrepresent, uh what I say and what the scripture says many times

Uh, and this is one of the problems of doing this like this is that I can't stop you say that's not what I said But you continue on to build a case on something.

I didn't say I didn't say that there was no grace, uh in regard to matthew 28 18 through 20.

I didn't say that He said matt said there's no grace Nothing any grace with it. I didn't say that And so you need to not as tell me what

I have said or not said and listen to what I actually do say um What I have said is that 20 18

Following does not say that grace is administered by baptism. That's what I said. I didn't say there was no grace associated with baptism

And we haven't defined what grace is and that's a whole nother topic And so, you know you went on and you talked about Protestants position that baptism is only symbolic

Well, I already addressed that earlier and say I don't hold to it only being symbolic

I think it's symbolic and at the very least a covenant sign And so I would think that if you're going to debate me

That you might want to address What I say And instead of going to all other people, okay

I don't agree with a lot of what the partisans say and that's okay In that I hold it to a covenant sign and I affirm infant baptism, but not for salvation because i'm a presbyterian

I'm a covenant. I call myself a consistent covenant analyst But that's another topic, um, and I did not say it's only symbolic as you were implying

So you're misrepresenting me and parting of the red sea passing through the water Uh, they weren't baptized

The water had to be moved away from them to get through just like peter talks about the water's destroyed.

Um people and noah's time They didn't touch the water water didn't touch them Uh, second kings five a leper was cleansed.

You know what? I'm, sorry. I'm not familiar with the context I can't comment on it and I didn't have time to do a full exegesis while you're going at 80 miles an hour

Sorry about that Uh, he said the scripture tells us that baptism saves and you misquoted, uh, first peter 321 again

You only quoted part of it. We already went over that and you haven't refuted my um, my assertion or my option that uh, what

Excuse me what peter was talking about in corresponding to that baptism saves you that that being the ark

And that they entered by faith and this is why peter says Not a removal of dirt in the flesh not the issue of the water upon them

I keep saying that whole thing and you keep ignoring that and then going into the one little thing Okay, well by not refuting what

I say you're you're not refuting it So it doesn't your case isn't made. It's not made

Uh, I didn't say that peter said and asked to that baptism was a testimony. I forgot what note what that was about I can't comment

Uh, you did bring up act 238 Um, I would ask you if it's a formula for salvation we can go over that Um, and no, it's not because faith is not the word faith is not in there.

Um, If it's a formula then faith needs to be in there and they receive the gift of the holy spirit after baptism in act 238

But before baptism in act 10 44 through 48, so that's a whole other discussion. We're discussing a discussion worth discussing

And uh question he said Baptism just washed away sins. He went to act 22 16 and uh, we already addressed that already

Several times teeth on the cross was not baptized my notes. It went so fast. It's hard for me to keep up with you

I'm, just responding to all you said that's all i'm doing uh Have you made my case in the other direction?

I'm, just responding to what you said you've not made your case You just asserted a bunch of things right into the text taking verses out of context

And rapid -fired a bunch of verses which doesn't prove anything Uh, the thief in the cross was not baptized and yet christ, uh, say he'll be with him

And that means in order to have that happen has to be saved in order for that to happen Otherwise, it couldn't be And um, then to say as you did earlier, well, maybe christ baptized him in paradise

And they were calling upon the name of the lord which unbelievers don't do and by a scriptural revelation They cannot do first corinthians 2 14.

The natural man cannot receive the things of god Fuller foolishness to him romans 3 10 11 12 Talks about the the gentiles who and the unbelievers basically who don't seek for god and um can do no good

And so you should read that because it talks about that I can go into a lot more scriptures about that and the unbelievers being slaves of sin romans 6 14 through 20

Talks about that them being slaves of sin and dead in their sins ephesians 2 1 and by nature children of damnation

Which is what ephesians 2 3 says if you want to go through all those verses sometime and look at them But that's just to make the case that unbelievers don't exalt god and aren't speaking in tongues

They they're true believers and for true believers are saved and you have them do all these things without being saved

It doesn't make any sense at all You quoted the greek that's fine, but you stopped at the at the place where it became difficult for you

I guess it didn't suit your theological presupposition And first corinthians 6 11 spoke so fast that I had to take notes.

I didn't follow what you said So it's difficult for me to respond but generically speaking just because one word is used in different places

Doesn't mean it has the exact same meaning in every context I forgot what you were saying about it But that was my note from what you were saying and that's committing a fallacy called illegitimate totality transfer

A word has many meanings in different contexts. You don't transfer from different places. You have to look at their context that's what we got to do with each of these verses and You don't allow that very often to be done

All right. There we go. Um I'm willing to uh stay on for a while. I'm sure uh,

James is too and we can have people come in and ask questions. Maybe they can do that also in uh, the uh the room either in the participation room or what

I can do is uh, Get the At the link to the actual uh video and see what people's texts are

And then questions in the text Maybe we can do that And how about if we alternate a question for him question for me kind of a thing?

If you guys have questions, you want to try that? How's that sound? James? I sound okay Sounds fine to me.

Okay and uh James bush. Let's see is baptism if baptism is a requirement for salvation in the person given the baptism as a

Requirement trust no man. Uh, okay. I'm, sorry. I thought it might have been a question Does anybody have a question?

I'm reading the uh the watching where you can type in but if you want to participate you can go into Uh apologetics live .com.

Just type one word apologetics live .com. It'll take you to Carm and then um, you can come in the room if you want

How does the catholic guy explain oh wait romans 4 5 It's not on um

The particular topic but if he wants to answer it he can romans 4 5 you want to tackle that one Yeah, well romans 4 5 4 5

Is going ahead and explaining differentiating between the faith receiving the faith participating in the faith and doing works

And it's saying you should not do well. That's really a justification type of Question really we're not talking about justification after initial justification because initial justification is not a work

Therefore that's not a faith versus work type of issue so You know, it doesn't really apply because baptism is not a work i've already demonstrated that baptism is not a work so um, and in fact

I know we're Discontinuing the debate between you and I I could have gotten more into it and shown scriptures whereby it shows that uh

Baptism is not a work but instead it's a gift from god. It's a mercy from god that he does to us For example ephesians 2 8 through 9, you know, you know protestants like to throw that out as well

And what they don't understand is that is that directly tied to titus 3 5? I've been saying pretty much the exact same thing that titus 3 5 is saying but all the early church fathers

Believe that titus 3 5 was speaking of water baptism so we have a problem here because if ephesians 2 8 through 9 is telling us what titus 3 5 is saying

Then that means ephesians 8 through uh, 2 8 through 9 Is speaking about initial justification is speaking about what the church has always taught

Which is that faith is conferred upon the believer at the moment of baptism So that's what it means when it says grace through faith not of works lest any man should boast

So we're receiving the grace right there from god at the moment. We're getting baptized. We're receiving the true faith because believing alone

I mean, there's nowhere in the bible where it says believing alone that somehow you receive justification Sanctification or any of that by believing alone?

And also 1 peter 3 21 when you look at that and you look at titus 3 5

They're both speaking about saving. So if titus 3 5 is speaking about baptism as the early church believed

And 3 uh 1 peter, uh, 3 21 is speaking about baptism. They're both saying that you're saved through baptism so therefore if Ephesians 2 8 through 9 is speaking about what titus 3 5 is speaking about Then that means that it too is speaking about water baptism and it's making the case

That you're brought into the faith and you're saved through baptism Okay, let me respond to some of that not all of it because there's a lot going on um

All the church fathers taught titus 3 5 meant water baptism Uh, I haven't done a study on that to verify that but I have discovered that when roman catholics tell me that That all the church fathers taught such and such

I find that it's never to be the case. So, uh I'll reserve that judgment for for there.

Um, Besides I wouldn't go with what the church fathers say anyway, so it's not relevant to the discussion um

You several times you made this made this mention you reminded me of this. Uh, you know, it doesn't say in the bible

You're talking about justification we're kind of bleeding over a little bit But it does relate because it's baptism necessary for salvation justification is part of salvation

And uh, nowhere does it say you you said nowhere does it say that? Um, we're saved by faith alone in christ alone that kind of a thing

Um, and you said that baptism is a work of god. Well, okay um There is a phrase that says where jesus says this is the work of god that you believe on whom you have sent

There's a phrase that tells us what the work of god is and it's not baptism It's faith

So i'm going to stick with what the bible says is the work of god and baptism is definitely a ceremony You have not established that water baptism is necessary for salvation

And nowhere says believing alone gets you justification. Yeah, it does romans 4 1 through 5, but we can have another discussion sometime

About other things. Okay, who's got another better? question Anybody got a question?

Want to ask me a question and he can respond or because whoever gets asked a question the other person gets to respond And we should that's how we do it in normal debates i've been in what the heck is why my visual so bad um

Is that in q a the person asked the question can answer it and then the other person can respond

And then go back and forth, even though they go back and forth. They could respond to respond to respond. We just do the one

I feel like he's been reading someone's commentary. Well, maybe he has um Or she has the scripture which proves well, okay

Uh, anyone say x isn't a work therefore is necessary for salvation you could okay anybody have any questions um

Well, uh, I don't know if this is on Yeah, you're in Oh, okay

I uh I was I was gonna call I didn't know about this debate thing until tuesday

Um, and then I found out and i'm like, okay. Well, I guess I wasn't gonna call today. Um, but I figured i'd listen in a

Couple of things and i'm trying to understand this because I this was uh, interesting to watch um

And so I have a question for each of you If that's okay Sure My question, um

My question to you and I'll i'll address you first. Um Actually, you know i'll address the other guy first because this is this is who's the guy and the other guy just okay

Well, you're you're matt and I don't the other guy doesn't have a name I'll just call him ralph. I don't know

James james james james great. Okay, first question for james Um, because there's been mention of tradition and i'm fascinated by this and one of the things that you mentioned

Was this um the idea that the old testament saints were? uh baptized afterwards

Um, which church father teaches at that? Okay, okay.

Well, I don't know of any church father that teaches that now maybe there is a church father that does

I don't know Well, I don't know but uh We do know that john 3 5 says that unless a man is water baptized and i'm sure your orthodox church believes john 3 5 is referring to water baptism

Right, so jesus is okay. Well, you want you asked me a question just allow me to answer.

Okay Let him answer let him answer. Okay, okay So the thing is your own orthodox church

Understands john 3 5 as referring to water baptism and john and jesus says right there

That unless somebody is water baptized, they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven

So it's not saying only those After the new covenant or those before he's making a general statement that unless you're water baptized

You cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven so Now I know I don't know what the orthodox believe

I know the vatican 2 sec believes in baptism desire and baptism of blood which are false teachings The traditional catholic church for 2 000 years only believed in water baptism

You can go back to the council of trent. You can go back to other councils as well It only believed in one baptism, which is water baptism the sacrament

So, I don't know what orthodox believe if you believe in more than one baptism, but maybe you got in After I was speaking about ephesians 4 or 5 where it's speaking about one baptism

And the niacin creed speaks about one baptism. So there's not three baptisms There's not a baptism of water baptism of desire baptism of blood baptism of holy spirit or baptism of fire

There's only one which is the water baptism. That's the new covenant baptism whereby one must be

Baptized into the new covenant In order to get into the kingdom of heaven, which again john 3 5.

Oh, and by the way I mean there's plenty of church fathers that You know it was

Well, he asked about early church fathers. There's plenty of church all the early church fathers spoke about john 3 5

I asked a specific question That was my question to you

And your Church father spoke about john 3 5 and they made it clear that that's speaking about water baptism

So we know that jesus said you must be water baptized to get into heaven. So that's that's About john 3 5.

I was talking about matthew 27 52 the dead coming out of their graves Hey guys guys guys. Look look if you guys want to have a debate, uh, you guys can set it up.

Okay That's all that's happening. So You said you had a question for me. You got one.

Yeah Let's do another 10 if it'll do a quarter after and then we'll we'll quit And I need to check on my wife and then i'll see about going to the after show afterwards.

We can talk there, too Go ahead All right. Well, um, basically i've also been reading the sidebar and uh

So i'm fascinated by this the sidebar atomic apologetics put up this thing Baptism is a silent sign and seal of god's grace in jesus christ

The startling statement that baptism saves you shows the closeness of the relationship between the sign and the reality it signifies Now the reason i'm bringing this up And it's it's on the sidebar i'm not just reading it's it's just in the chat the the hangouts chat

It's the last the last thing that was written um But the point is the reason i'm bringing this up is because what i'm trying to understand

If there's a difference, um, okay. Hi sean in any case, um

The reason i'm bringing this up is because what i'm trying to understand like when we're talking about the ethiopian eunuch um

We you know, we you know, what is there to prevent me from being baptized? um, it's not like I like I get the fact that we're talking about the question of where does the grace come from?

That's an interesting academic question. But my question is why is it separated to begin with? It's not like I don't think that you know, the apostle philip told the eunuch

Okay. Well, you know, he explained the scriptures and the eunuch was like well Does that mean I get an award by jumping in the river?

I mean there was a purpose to the baptism and i'm wondering why that's separated out If that makes sense, no doesn't make any sense to me in other words

In other words, why is the why is the water of baptism separated from the belief?

If that like because i'm I tend to say wait, wait, wait trying to get your okay. I'm trying to send your question

Like why is this question for me or him? No, that's for you It's why because it's an interesting question that i'm curious about is to why we separate the faith from the water itself

I don't don't know what you mean by separate the faith from the water Well, we keep talking about how the baptism isn't what's saving you.

It's the faith that's saving you now I would say that it's obviously your faith and the water Saving you in the same way that when christ healed someone he used sand for example

Now the sand did not obviously. I got you. I got you Yeah, so you're trying to understand or i'm trying to send you so you're saying then um that uh that the symbol

Is closely related to the the thing it symbolizes And it almost I'd say inextricably linked, but why separate them is my question um

I don't Okay, that was it If I said before I believe that baptism is a covenant sign

And I believe there's certain certain covenant responsibilities and actions of god in a gracious manner

I don't believe that grace is a substance that's infused that makes you more righteous and more sacraments you participate in I get really confused when people start talking about grace and stuff like that So well,

I just believe grace is a kindness of god. That's an unmerited favor upon us and that And I don't have this all worked out but because even within protestant theology there are differences of opinion about the nature and extent of The two main sacraments and how their means of grace and how far that goes and I don't have all worked out

So I just don't But uh, it's a good question worth a good A good discussion on it could mean this it could mean that advantage of disadvantages to different positions on that So I even have these discussions with my protestant fellows and they don't agree with me on some of these things and then

Maybe that's a but you might be right though So that anyway, um now what

I will say is this, you know, I do want a piece of you. Just kidding um, I actually want to you know,

I wanted to follow up from last time, uh, so I I you're you guys are really busy.

There's a lot of stuff going on. I don't I apologize. I don't remember you. Um, Deacon joseph swayden.

Oh Wow, that's embarrassing, isn't it? Yeah, that's okay. I'm pretty unmemorable

No, I think it's well for me. It's normal. But um, I I Sorry If you said your name

I'd get oh, okay, but you just don't sound like You think I remember because I don't remember the sound I remember the discussion.

So I apologize but no worries But uh, whenever you know, I guess

I was gonna try today but you had kind of something lined up Sorry about that james, but you know Yeah, you guys ought to go at it.

It'd be fun. Uh, I offered you Let's okay anybody else have a question when you go till a quarter after And I do need to check on my wife.

Okay. I did put something on there It's not really on topic but um on the side chat there India hangout and I also posted that's where that was.

He was reading. I was looking for the other room. Sorry Uh, and I also posted on youtube, uh chat, too

All right What's your question? Baptism is a sign and seal of god's grace in christ.

Jesus Go ahead and read that since the two synods of hippo and carthage were under the control

Of what would later become the orthodox church? How can the roman catholic church claim they determine the canon?

Would not such a claim be more naturally due to the eastern orthodox church. Okay, go ahead for me

Yeah, no, that would be a roman catholic guy, but oh, okay You're starting to fight. I mean, you know, you're starting to fight between an eo and an rc, you know, but um

Okay. Well, that's that question doesn't uh really pertain to the debate that we were having that's completely different topics.

So i'm You know Okay, anybody have a question on the topic at hand?

I'm looking through the text And I don't see anything and if we don't have any more questions, then you know, we can just be done because it's after been two hours and I I want to apologize again for my

Clicking the the thing off. It was not intentional. It was just A dumb mistake and uh, sorry about that I think you're being gracious about that too.

You're patient. I appreciate that Okay, uh I don't see any other questions.

Okay, no other questions. So I'll tell you what um Uh, is uh the after show going to be around?

john Yes, I can go ahead and get one started and for the viewers, uh,

All you gotta do is just do a search for atomic apologetics on youtube and find my channel and then from there, uh, i'll go ahead and post the link to join and also to uh,

You can just view the show from there. It'll be about probably like an hour long or so Um, i'll try to get some of the council involved and uh, yeah, we'll have a good old discussion

Well, could you put a link in here and then I can go join it and then I can leave this thing that i'm in Right now and then I can go check on my wife make sure everything's okay with her um

In order for me to get a link. I need to actually leave this hangout and then start a new one and then so what

I could do is uh Okay, I can just email with you.

What was that info at? Yeah info at karma is fine And i'm gonna go I gotta close out and see how my wife's doing because a lot of people know

My wife's got some serious medical issues coming up lately and I just need to check on her Before you go matt.

I just want to tell you that. Um, You know if you'd like to continue this discussion this debate at a later time i'd be happy to do so, uh, because uh, you know

You had made some claims about noah's ark connecting it to one period 321 and i'd very much like to delve into that Well, if you want to discuss a particular verse we could have a discussion on it

What I would end up doing is is getting a greek scholar and referring to him on it I'm, not a greek expert

But the antecedent generally is the rule is that the closest noun or whatever it is The topic refers to the antecedent and this that's not the case in first peter 321

And so it is a debatable issue, but there are scholars who hold to the position I hold to and don't So what is the real position and if we're to debate something i'm not going to debate you, uh on something you don't believe

But what you do believe and uh, you know, so that's my position but uh, we can discuss another time

Okay, sounds great. Okay All right, everybody then i'm gonna i'm gonna go ahead and close this down and james.

Thanks for showing up It was a good conversation. I hope it was at a fine for people and uh So, thank you

And i'm gonna be gone for 10 or 15 minutes or less checking my wife If I don't come back at all, it's because she needs me

But if I do come back, obviously she says it's okay how she's doing. Okay So god bless everybody and thanks and uh, thanks james for participating and everybody else