Debate Review on Justification w/ Dr. Stephen Boyce

Post tenebrous. Oh, this isn't Anthony Rogers. I'm sorry. Hey, welcome to the apologetic dog

Where it's our heart's desire to contend for the gospel of grace I see

Anthony Rogers in the side chat. I want to just thank you so much brother for All that you do for the kingdom and and thanks for joining us today at the apologetic dog

And so if you're new to the apologetic dog, this is an apologetics ministry Once again where we're contending for the gospel of grace and if you see somewhere embedded in the logo,

I got the logo over here You see first Timothy 620 where Paul tells

Timothy Oh Timothy guard the deposit That's been entrusted to you and do this by avoiding irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called

Knowledge and so we do that by standing on the truth the father or Jesus told the father your word is truth.

And so here that's what we we we hope to do we pray that God would bless our time by vindicating the

Christian worldview and Destroying any rival thoughts that goes against the knowledge of God.

My name is Jeremiah Nortier I serve as a pastor and elder at twelve five church in Jonesboro, Arkansas So if you're in the

Northeast Arkansas area, please come check our fellowship We'd love to get to know you and just show you around And so let's see.

What else? Oh, yeah today We have a special episode where I have a guest dr.

Stephen Boyce what's going on? What's going on? Jeremiah? I But I didn't know you

I named him after the Prophet. So But it's good. I've never been on your show before we've dialogued a lot, but I don't think

I've ever been on your show Oh, yeah, when all my tough Greek questions. I'm like, I gotta hit up. Dr.

Boyce. Thank you for just helping me out Real quick. I just want to encourage people if you're new to the apologetic dog channel, just please like subscribe and share and Dr.

Boyce tell us a little bit about your ministry where you come from where people can find you Sure, so I work with an apologetics network

That's called facts. It was stationed out of particularly Explore Christianity at one point and I started my own entire

Podcast that was kind of a side gig as a result of the side gig It turned into what

I was studying at the time of doing my PhD which covered church fathers Apocryphal works canonicity was the main portion and then the secondary to textual criticism

So I started a channel called facts, which is an acronym father's apocrypha canon text scripture

So we talk anything that it's about two years old now, and we just started dual launching through YouTube as well

And so we launched YouTube about four or five months ago and the podcast is on any of the platforms

You can go to you can go to Spotify and good Apple pod being Google Podcasts it's on multiple platforms

Just look for the Jerusalem Cross and you can put my name in I'm joined with co -host

Tyler West who's on that as well And so we do anything in relation to those subjects and we've actually been

Sanctioned into the Diocese of Carolina, so we're actually doing apologetic work within Anglican churches moving forward and also going through the process of Continuing those relationships and actually and beyond that we don't just do that as well.

We work with Baptist churches. We work with Lutheran churches, I mean there's multiple platforms that we're doing apologetics and it's all a part of the kingdom of God And so that's a baby that we do yeah, we're trying to get him to catch up a little bit

You get a weight on us and I growing up there well, you know You're a little slow in the

Baptist side. So, you know, we have to wait up but no We were Tyler and I were both

Baptist ministers, obviously at one point. So we have Tremendous friendships and relationships still in the

Baptist Church. So we work closely with many of those pastors Well, hey praise

God So can I call you Steven? Dr. Boyce? What would I call that? Steven I Remember two times watching you specifically on the

Internet and one was with dr Layton flowers y 'all had a debate back in the day.

I remember that which one I've debated in twice it was a really long proposition and I think it was basically can the unregenerate man respond positive

Positively to God and I remember a point you made to this day. I remember like standing up like oh,

I understand I remember Layton flowers point was see Adam can respond to God right after he said and you're like, well, he ran

He resisted and rebelled. So like what do you what's your point there? I'm three hours Three I alliterated turn that in Baptist seminary, too

Which which by the way like so So debating him on that subject and then we ended up doing a side debate on a

Catholic Channel on limited atonement, I don't know how it ended up happening that way, but it did and the first debate you're referring to is actually on Marlon's Channel and Then after and it was crazy had two debates back -to -back.

I had a textual criticism debate The day after that and then I debated late and flowers the day before so I was exhausted and then flowers had me on his channel the very next week

Going into the debate and discussing it on his own channel. So we got to spend more time

Doing an in -depth analysis And I don't think you know, I I like him as a person.

I get lazy guy I mean, he's super nice guy. We would we would chat back and forth all the time, but man

I just I think he's got like scripted lines and he doesn't know how to get off of him.

Sometimes it's like man I don't think you understand Calvinism why you say you do so I just quit talking to him about it

My life's gone a lot smoother. So I got to meet dr. Flowers in February I spoke at a conference in Tullahoma, Tennessee, and I saw the man

So I went over there and I introduced myself and you know, he told me he says you're one of the nicest Calvinist I've ever met.

I was like, thank you Don't be don't be flattered. He says that to all of us We also got to I traveled to Texas when he debated dr.

White and I don't did you get to watch that debate? Oh Thank you did cuz you you said something on Facebook.

You're like these two never need to debate again Yes, I made a bold proclamation

Because it's bad like in and I thought I thought it was unproductive Everybody clearly had an attitude going into it that was brewing from previous encounters and engagements and and I stand by my statement and Layton actually responded to me on that but Maybe he'll take my advice.

I don't know well, I think he's actually I forget where he was working at one of the seminate seminaries in Texas I think but he stepped down from that position so he could pursue more time at Soteriology 101 when

I interviewed dr. White a couple months ago. We got a kick out of that I'm saying. Oh, we we all knew is coming

Well, it's funny as he told me in one of his discussions he said he said he said, you know I do more than just talk about Calvinism.

I was like, I'd like to find that content. Where is that? Where can I find that because I've never seen it So, you know, he says he does apologetics, but I maybe he does maybe it's just on a spare time off Internet streams, but every time

I hear him talk it's on Calvinism. So Well, that's just one of your many debates. We actually

You had a debate here recently and that's why we're having you on and so I'm gonna show this first graphic that kind of illustrates

The nature of the debate or was on justification and so I'll pull up that graphic here in a minute But but tell us a little bit before How all y 'all got roped in to this debate did somebody initiate it did

Marlon reach out to y 'all how'd this come about I I think it was Marlon Because actually it was

Samuel who came to me and said hey We should debate Trent Horne and Jimmy Akin as if they were already set up to do a debate on a subject

I'm not a hundred percent sure But all I know is Samuel said let's do it next thing

You know, I'm thrown into a message with Marlon Samuel and others and and we went back and forth the debate almost didn't happen because mmm

Akin Didn't like the format originally and I'm talking about within two weeks now less than two weeks before the debate

Which kind of irritated us at first? but we Gave them a counter offer and made it work.

We kind of turned it into a part one part two debate instead of Trying to merge it into one giant debate, which

I you know, I wasn't happy still not thrilled about that format, but We made it happen.

It worked out and honestly, you know Trent Horne Jimmy Akin. They're great guys They're super Easy to be around have conversations with I have nothing but respect for them always have

We have our differences clearly and that was demonstrated in the debate They're good men and I think they're doing some good things as well, but it happened we can get into a lot of the how it happened functionally as it went on because I think some of that was flying the

Plane as we were or building the planes. We were flying it as they say because the format was very different than two on two debates and It was almost two debates made into one which left a ton of content out there

But very little time to actually discuss it and then Things started happening in the debate that took us off the main subject and I won't blame

Jimmy Akin for that But at the end of the day Somehow we ended up on purgatory for a minute and eternal security by the end and we actually left the realm

Justification on on quite a few occasions between both cross examinations. So yeah

Yeah, I just want to pull up that graphic again Can you see this on your end?

So that's the graphic in the background want to shout out to Marlon Wilson at the gospel truth Hey, that brother's been doing some awesome awesome work moderating hosting debates now for a few years and So any idea any idea how many debates you've done on there?

You've done at least two right with flowers Uh, I think I've been on there four times.

I debated flowers. I debated Jack Shannon I was on there for an interview as well.

That wasn't a debate this debate. There may have been another one I've been on there four or five times now at least four.

No, no less than four. I know three debates one interview on Canon, I believe I Think I got you beat by one

But we flew Marlon from California to Jonesboro, Arkansas, and I was his first live in -person debate

So there were some kinks that came along with that We had to record it and then he had to air it later

But it was so much fun getting to meet Marlon in person. I told Marlon though. I think I can post him up.

I Don't know about that You know Marlon's a nice guy, but he's a big dude.

I was sizing him up. I got to see him in person Wait, hey

So with this kind of long debate it was kind of like two debates like you're talking about You're essentially saying that there was a few things left on the table and so I wanted to show people your triangle here and maybe

Take a moment to kind of explain what you were like what you would have liked to discuss more

I thought this illustration was very helpful for the things that you're bringing up Yeah, so I the point

I made in my original slide was that Justification I believe has been limited in its definition

We say well it means to be made righteous declared righteous something along those lines and it does it most certainly does but I demonstrated through first Timothy chapter 3 verse 16 that the word justification or justify must have a greater effect because Paul said of Jesus that he was justified in the spirit and We don't believe that Jesus needed righteousness imputed to him.

We would say he was a perfect Sinless son of God, he didn't need righteousness imputed and then

I demonstrated through his ministry how he said that his works declared who he was that they affirmed him even challenged people if you don't believe my words believe my works and then he

Condemned people for rejecting his works and so multiple times. We see Jesus validated by his actual works of what he said

He was going to do from the baptism of where the father said this is my beloved son whom

I am well please there's a proclamation from the proclamation comes vindication and validation and Yeah, you have it pulled up there in the

Old King James. It actually has the word justified And so but it's the same word.

It's from the same Greek word And so we see that justification must have a multifaceted viewpoint

It's not just being made righteous before God So on the chart, how does one become righteous before God because the question of the debate which

I think was Ignored a couple times was how does one basically get justified before God?

You're justified before God by grace through faith Abraham believed

God and it was accounted to him as righteous So he was made righteous by faith

I try to demonstrate through the life of Abraham that Ephesians 2 is played into it from Genesis 14 to 15

He was met by the high priest slash King Melchizedek in chapter 14 who greeted

Abraham with wine and bread demonstrating the early preliminary in my opinion form of what became

Eucharist and He which was an initiation and option of grace it was an imputed grace to him and by the next chapter

I don't think it is absolutely in any way shape or form an accident that he ends up believing God in his kind of righteousness

He was given grace and he acted in faith. So you have by grace through faith.

That's right there in Genesis 14 15 So he's made righteous before God it's done. He in his standing before God is righteous, but Justification has itself played into different ways too because once you're made righteous before God We believe that faith is not alone when it comes to its activity faith is played out through works

And that's what James 2 is teaching which we'll get into that more in the clips So when you come down into this when somebody

When somebody is looking at their life What we we look at is the activity of God working in and through us and the way that we connect with God the most is through the sacraments and the

Sacraments are a way of validating our justification before God. It doesn't justify us in the sense of bringing us righteousness before God It actually validates and justifies what

God has already done for us and it validates our self So we're justified before ourselves as a result of taking of sacraments and experiencing the grace of God because sacraments are simply a means of Grace when we receive the overflow of God's grace through sacraments

We then spill those things out into the lives of others and that's what

Galatians 5 is teaching when it talks about Love working itself out and we talked about that in the debate briefly.

So what is the evidence of? Somebody who is justified what are the true works of a justified person?

Well, it's spelled in love and charity. And so the acts of love are What validate us before others?

They're the works that reveal to men that we have been made right before God and we are spilling that over into making relationships right with others bringing peace and grace into our communities and our relationships and that is infused by our contact with God through sacraments

So it's it's in the proper order from being made righteous before God by faith and faith

And I use the word carefully because we explained alone That is what brings righteousness before God.

The result of that is we will be constantly justified Ourselves and being justified before man by these two avenues.

So that was the point of that Yeah Well, I really liked about this is usually

I talk about the justification before God and then the justification before man kind of going to Romans 4 and James 2 but the way that you illustrated this with the triangles you brought out the

Sacraments and forgive me for my my Baptist tendencies here with talking about ordinance about tell people from sacraments ordinances

We're still we're talking the same language But I loved what you said is this is a kind of justification for ourselves and I've heard you say this that it's a say it's sanctifies us and I've always tried to tell people absolutely

And we we may be different on some of the nuances The Holy Spirit is present within the the sacraments and even as reformed

Baptist we say yes and amen In slight different ways, but in many ways this is sanctifying

Before others in the corn Ania in the congregation and then also for ourselves And so I just I really appreciated kind of this third dynamic that I've never really thought about but I loved how you brought it out

Well, I mean at the end of the day I mean when you look and I mentioned this very briefly about Jesus himself if you're in John's gospel

For example after he was threatened to be stoned and people were rejecting him people were talking about what to do with him

It talks at the very end and John Right before he does the great miracle and Bethany When you look at Jesus's ministry

He left the place of the people for a while and he went back to the place where John first Baptized and I reflected on that for a while.

It's like wait. Why why did Jesus go back and isolate himself to the very place? Where he was baptized by John and and he took

I think what he did is encouraged himself and he strengthened himself In the proclamation because it is in that place.

He heard the words and This is my beloved son whom I'm well -pleased the rest of his community was rejecting him saying

I'm not pleased with Jesus and they were constantly trying to find a way to trap him and kill him at this point and he just needed time to go back and remember his baptism and in remembering his baptism it strengthened him and Validated the work he was doing despite the responses

He was getting and so when I think about that if Jesus does that Do we go back to these sacraments and these moments where God does something to us?

in when that happens it Comforts and encourages and validates our call

This is who I am and if I'm not living within my baptism, then I go to confession

I repent and if I'm not living out the part of Abiding in Christ that comes in Eucharist.

Well, then I repent. I mean, that's what I do That is a good check and balance for us because when we are in sin, we need the sacraments

We need these means of grace to give us the ability to overcome the sin and in doing that it

Validates us that we're dealing with sin Grace is being given and as a result it gives us encouragement and justification

Ourselves and once we solve the sin problem with their own heart before God in the sanctifying process

What's going to be the result of a person who comes out of that clean? They're going to love others that is these aren't maybe like these are connected

They're not one out of three if you are justified before God you will

These acts and that's some of the debate as well Yeah So To me justification is is the core for a lot of these these topics and I was really glad you debated

Jimmy Akin and Trent horn because they've been debating. Dr. White for a while and So I just I think a lot of clarity was brought out now

We're gonna get into kind of how works comes into the equation now You've already kind of been talking about it with the triangle here

But two on two debates are hard because so much is left on the table and that's okay I know with debates a lot of times you hear things for the first time

Who are challenging and debates are supposed to spark your interest to go continue your study.

You know what I mean, correct? And so is there anything else you want to kind of set up before we kind of we got maybe four or five clips here

That I'd love for us to touch on. I want to encourage the the side chat if you have any questions For Steven or myself definitely put them in the side chat and we'll bring him out and I'll give

Steven a chance to kind of engage with that. But yeah, she wouldn't and love to no,

I'd love to I'd love to have feedback from the audience. I always enjoy Dialogues, so we'll hit some clips and if some comments come in we'll pause and we'll talk about them.

That'd be great I guess another thought here because I've done a lot of my debates revolve around the nature of Justification and so kind of going back to the top of the pyramid

Maybe this gets highlighted a lot within Protestant circles now our Anglicans.

Are y 'all still Protestant? I know you've said kind of reform Catholics by definition. Yeah by definition. We are

Protestants. We were Protestants before Luther. So You know, it's yeah, it wasn't for good reasons

King Henry the eighth Didn't split with Rome on on good It was it was not what

Rome makes it out to be because at the end of the day they so the whole movement was Started on a man wanting a divorce and couldn't get it.

No, the iceberg was was hit long before that That was just the straw that broke the

Campbell's back. There was issues with the papacy there was issues with some of the these medieval traditions that were getting in the way the people of England were already getting frustrated with the the the abuse of power

So King Henry the eighth was just the last straw there were so many things leading to it

It would have happened with or without that. It made it take another 20 30 years, but it was it was moving

We already got a question from Adam Carmichael Steven, why did you let Jimmy keep talking so much?

Yeah, so this was so this this was part of the issue and I'm glad that's a great question because I think it needs to be stated so part one

Was Jimmy and Samuel part two was me and Trent now

We were told that any of us could jump in for the dialogue side of each other's part one part two so once that started

I became immediately confused because Samuel I was gonna let Samuel answer as much as possible.

You have 15 minutes to ask questions off your dialogue and So I wanted to make sure

Samuel had as much time as he needed to ask Jimmy anything he wanted

Jimmy started targeting his question at both of us and the issue that I had and this is you know

And again, I love Marlon, but here's one of the criticisms. I have Marlon today Jimmy was only letting us have one -word answers and In the one -word answers because I it twice you can go back and watch the clip twice

Yes, but and he said no no, no, it's all needed just just that's all I needed yes or no but in a cross -examination the the person asking the question is supposed to have less than 60 seconds to ask it and The response is supposed to be less than 60 seconds to answer it and a 15 minute dialogue with one guy asking two guys

Questions that's a minute a minute in a minute. That's three minutes just off one question

So that should give you I don't know why there's balloons going up, but that should give you a total of five questions

I should give you a total of five questions and five responses from two guys.

So at that point Jimmy took a lot of time to ask a couple of his questions and Then he cut us off To only answer one word answers and I was honestly waiting for Marlon because I think it's really bad

Etiquette now, dr White would disagree with me because he does all time to intrude and make a scene within the debate

To say hey, Jimmy, shut up, you know, like you need to let us know, you know, it looks bad

To do that. That's really where I was kind of waiting for the moderation now I'll tell you this and Samuel will validate what

I'm saying After I got cut off the second time he knew I was getting it like Samuel knew

I was getting mad Because he knows me as well as anybody and He said, all right, we got a new strategy.

He's like I can see you're getting frustrated. I said, yep I said we are gonna start inserting ourselves I said I'm gonna end up looking like a jerk by the time this is over because I'm not getting cut off again

And I was waiting for Marlon and then Marlon I think picked up on it because by the second round he actually said, okay guys

You know, let's take less than 60 seconds to answer and ask questions But that wasn't ever really discussed in the cross -examination of how much time to take for each side

So that was kind of the dilemma, too So once we got settled in on kind of how we were gonna do this and who is gonna insert

That didn't happen till the second cross -examination And after that, I don't know if anybody remembers this but Jimmy was asked a yes -or -no question

And he went to explain his yes, and I said, nope. No, it's all needed to know so I turned it back on him in the second round, but Yeah, there should have been better moderating in that part and honestly better communication from all four of us to make sure we understood who was

How long the question should be asked and how long the response to that question should be? Well, I think

Marlon does a great job things can easily get out of hand if if anybody has watched some of the past debates

He had to end up deleting one because it was just so wild and so Marlon has a tough job

Marlon does a great job and you know, I've I've done I think 11 debates now and Steven kind of what you're talking about.

I've thought okay, you know what? I'm gonna be more shrewd with my time than earlier in the earlier debates now

It's easier when they're live and in -person debates to be a little bit more shrewd Meaning hey,

I really need kind of a pithy answer here And you know what if you're smiling if you're maybe it's light -hearted a little bit and they don't feel so attacked

They understand that. Hey, and this is how I always said in my debates is whoever's asking questions

They are the one that has to control time now. You made a good point People are gonna interpret and perceive what they want to and have different conclusions.

So it's really a tough call and I've had people tell me that I'm very firm but kind and loving but that doesn't mean

I'm gonna let them just Waste all my time. So it's some of those things you got to make a tough call in the debate and As you know two on two debates are a totally different beast than one -on -one debates yeah, cuz you got four people involved four people trying to talk over each other and And it really wasn't my turn either.

I was asked a question under Samuels, but Yeah, so I mean it there were so many dynamics happening in that first cross -examination

I think everybody was still a little bit taken back by the giant 10 to 12 minute pause that happened

Where Jimmy's voice went out so Yeah, so Jimmy Jimmy was quiet for a good long time

He was muted for a good 12 minutes and we still to this day. Don't know what happened to his microphone system I again, you know, it sounds like I'm picking on Marlon, but he knows

I love him But he's got to get better software for days. But can we all agree that and that Marlon needs to get

We need Marlon. You got to get some stream your hate. I'll tell you what a bunch of us We'll pitch in and we'll help get you a stream yard account or a cam live baby.

That's what I use And it's been a great software So and we look and we love Marlon.

So it's all good so I do want a brand clip where You did get a pretty good interesting

Interaction with Jimmy on I think it was John chapter 5 verse 24 because they were really pushing back on some of your

Exegesis of what Jesus was saying in John 5 so let me play this first clip and then I'd love to get your thoughts on it

Going back to verse 24 of that chapter the one who has eternal life He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life there is a

Transformation that is there and the word not is and not comes is indicative.

It's not a subjunctive verb here So there is a definitive action that has taken place both in the transformation and the passing of what will not happen

What will happen? Okay, that's I'm gonna need to respond to that sure

So you're introducing a grammatical point and it goes the mere presence of the indicative mood does not do this

The indicative mood is not used to refer to definitive irreversible actions. The relevant verb is passed

He's passed from death to life But what but passing does not mean an irreversible action

I can pass from from Arkansas to California For a work trip and then

I can pass back from California to Arkansas to go home So if one passes from death to life

He can by unrepenting pass from life to death which is the point of the parable of the prodigal son where the son leaves the father and Goes and lives a life of dissipation and the father says my son is dead.

He's become spiritually dead Yeah, I would say that that's reading too much in the indicative

The passage doesn't say he will not come into judgment It just says he he does not

I worry, but I share Jimmy's concern about over reading it. All right,

Stephen Hey, I don't have all the time you want now Yeah, so the thing is like I we were talking about the word comes not comes at first Erica Tay in Greek, I believe it is and I didn't even get to the word has passed

Because obviously Jimmy wanted to jump in and I was trying to be respectful and let him do it, but he talks about it

And so when we were getting into both verbs because both they're not comes and has passed

Meta bet Cain I think and when you look at both they have the indicative not just one both in fact

Has passed is a perfect indicative he actually contradicted the whole point because the illustration in which he uses was

Going from one state to another doesn't mean I can't go back through those states again

Which I appreciate Samuel jumping in because at that point my speaking lines were over and says do we really want to compare traveling from states to Passage Because what what was ignored is in verse 24.

We have the statement about believing the words Truly the one who believes on the things that I've said and him who has sent me so you're believing the words

Believing him who sent me ultimately you're believing in God has eternal life

And this is the part where Samuel was trying to emphasize the idea of eternal then.

What does eternal mean? Because it's temporal at this point and the

Transformation that is brought here. Is that you have not come into judgment

Because you now have eternal life and you have passed from the state of death and it's not

It's up again. It's a perfect verb. It's done. The action is done and it is indicative is definitive

Like let's not soften that a little bit now I'm not saying that you know that settles the whole debate on one single verb and its tenses

I'm not saying that and that was never the point of my my argument. I didn't bring John 5 up Somebody else brought

John 5 up. I was merely responding to the fact that somebody jumped straight to We will be judged according to works in that passage but ignored the whole beginning section of John 5 about believing on him who sent believe on him who sent

Jesus and That their state and condition has gone from Death to life in a definitive way and then you have the eternality of that He has eternal life, which was what

Samuel but again I didn't get to explain any of that because somebody wanted to respond immediately because I was actually gonna tie it into Samuel's opening about the term eternality

Yes, so I had the verse pulled up just kind of let everybody kind of get caught up for talking about So when

Jesus says truly truly I say to you whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and so That's really important because I know in Roman Catholic Doctrine, you know and y 'all made this point earlier in the debate of if eternal life can be lost

Then it's not really eternal life Stephen I saw them immediately like like they tensed up like they've heard that before but you could tell they do not like that Line of logic, but I think there's some true weight behind that understanding of like eternal life

It's happened to you, right? Whoever the Sun sets free is free indeed.

You know what I mean? Yes, so there's You you don't see this in the teachings of John particularly this idea that when

Jesus comes to save that there's the potentiality of that salvation

You see definitive acts of saving Transformation people who the woman at the well,

I mean go to John 4 right Jesus speaking in Nicodemus and John 3 He's inviting him into this kingdom.

He's inviting him to the new birth. That is from above not from the earth It's something that happens to you like the wind just hits you you are born of water and the spirit

And and when you look at the dynamic of that Jeremiah going back to the prophet

Ezekiel the promise. I will give you a heart of Flesh I will take the heart of stone.

There's an exchange That's happening here. There's a Transformation change and it is in that prophecy because John the

Apostle loves the prophet Ezekiel I mean he clearly gives you a lot of his prophecies in Revelation He uses a lot of his analogies and in John in John 3.

He's clearly speaking of the birth because if you go through Ezekiel's prophecy there in chapters 36 specifically you find that I will wash you with water

I will put my spirit within you. This is the born of water and the spirit that's being taught in in that I don't see where the prophecy that Jesus is saying has come to Fulfillment is some sort of potential

Transformation that can be gauged in and then out and then back in and then back out

I mean It's like the old sponge Bob episode where like Patrick Patrick sitting there and there's this egg trying to get light to give it

An opportunity to live and hatch and then he's flipping the light switch on going life death life death life

Like I don't I don't think that's the the intentionality Purpose overarching in the gospel

John when it comes to Jesus when he says things like I didn't just come to give him life

I came to give him life more abundant Jesus was was seeking a finality of Transformation of a purpose and I don't believe and this is the part that I struggle with with Roman Catholicism And again, you know, maybe this would have came out more in a one -on -one debate

And again, they're great guys and I'm not criticizing them I'm just focusing on the the argument itself is that when you look at the process here if it is grace that Saved us before God righteously standing before him.

It is grace. That's going to sustain us as well And so it's it's no longer, you know grace and faith

We're made righteous before God and now it's grace and works It is grace and faith that works in in the top of the pyramid

It's grace and faith in the sacraments because sacraments are not a work They're a means of grace that works in and through us and it's grace and faith that works love

To our brothers and by that none of this at any point has been dependent on works

Works are the product of all three phases of the justification triangle and therefore

I struggle to see where somebody is Able in their new nature which comes up later in first John to spring out of eternal life and choose

Death again, and and we'll explain more as that we go to the videos But I don't believe we represented

John 5 fairly in that debate Because one I didn't get to finish what I was saying because I was only on one single verb

Didn't get a chance to tie it back to the adjective that that Samuel was emphasizing Because I was trying to link his argument with mine

We just didn't get a chance to fill that in because he had to get his words in but which is fine I mean, that's part of debate

Yeah, so kind of moving from John 5 I can't remember exactly when this next part came up in the debate

But there was a lot of talk about James chapter 2 now to me this has to be brought up This has to be brought up because when we're talking from Protestants to Roman Catholics One of the things that separates us that were worlds apart in my understanding and so you can inform me here

I always learn something from you Steven when you when you explain things, so I appreciate that But I really do think that Rome adds works to the gospel of grace

Now I speak a lot to this topic and I'm pretty shrewd with my understanding of works

Just because it's all of grace now where me and you strongly agree Is it's not all grace is not just necessary like Rome says but grace is sufficient

I'm getting ready to preach on the passage where you know Paul has a thorn in his side and then as we continue to read on God says to Paul my grace is sufficient for you.

And as you're saying grace is not just sufficient for a believers Regeneration and justification.

I think we agree there But but God's grace is sufficient for our sanctification our ongoing walk with Christ That's why we look at the golden chain of redemption and saying okay, yeah who can bring a charge against God's elect

He's he's the one perfecting the work. His grace is sufficient So, I don't know if you want to add to that any

No, I mean, it's hard to argue with that aspect I would say that some of the lingo that you hear from Jimmy and Trent is more revisionist

Okay That's my opinion they might be offended that I say that but I think what was being emphasized

In a lot of the issue that Luther took with the church Was more works based than what they're explaining

I realized that the Council of Trent clarified a lot of that But it took a council to do clarity because clearly the priests within the

Catholic Church Were not on the same page in the functionality of what is works mean?

And obviously Luther struggled with James 2 because he wasn't certain of its interpretation and he was seeing as Rome was teaching this and therefore it looks like James shouldn't belong because he had an issue with the canonicity of James at that point

But looking at James 2 for example, the phrasing is important And we'll get into that.

I guess the next clip you're gonna show is gonna be of James 2 Yes, James chapter 2, let's check it out

Trent you made a comment here In relation to James chapter 2 that I want to make sure understood you are you saying that James 2 is talking about justification before God not before people

Yeah, I'm I was quoting what the a Protestant scholar Thomas Schreiner was speaking about where what

James is referring to when? It comes to justification Sure. What what is your view? my view that that Abraham's righteousness

Increased by obeying God and being willing to offer Abraham as a sacrifice He did not enter into an initial state of justification by being obedient to God but his justification it increased because he was obedient to God because Works all works also justify us not just faith alone

Point out real quick The this is a cop because this is a common source of misunderstanding and I just need a yes or no

I just need a yes or no. I just need a yes or no that it justifies them before God No, does

James to speak about justifying before God or people? Well, that's kind of a broad question.

That's a broad question with the chapter It's not really but I guess I would say I would say before God though.

It does talk about other people looking at our faith So this is where I disagree So this is where I disagree with him

Very much. I actually that was the point I made in my opening that I thought was like I was surprised he was shocked by my question because I Completely presented this and I'm looking at my slides right now our justification before ourselves

Abraham validated himself before God by offering a son of sacrifice symmetry, etc

And I talked about Genesis 22 12 and if you go to James chapter 2 and if you want to pull up James chapter 2 here

Yeah, kind of going back to like a verse 20 ish Especially by the time we get to verse 22

It's none of this is about justification before God the only part that shows justification before God is in the reminder of years prior in Genesis 15

The whole section is a debate Where James is having like this hypothetical debate with himself and others you have faith

I have works show me Your faith apart from your works and I will show you my faith by my works so Then if you keep going through the chapter here you find illustration about People who are in need and you've neglected to clothe them when they're when they're naked and refuse

None of this is about justifying our Christian walk before God In fact, the challenge is you show me faith apart from your works and I'll show you mine by my works

What is James seeking to do here? He's not seeking to justify himself before God He's seeking to prove validate

Vindicate his faith before man Only one time do we see that the ramifications of this before God and that is after the words verse 20 verse 22 and Faith was completed

Right by his works. So faith is not yet complete

Until works has manifested and mutated itself out of faith So works mutate from faith and therefore he concludes in verse 23

Scripture was fulfilled when it said Abraham believed God and was count of righteous. That's about to Genesis 15 So years later when

Abraham offered his son This is probably you know debated multiple whether Isaac was a young Adulterer and which

I think he was I don't think it was some little child who's Karen firewood up a mountain here and and even rabbinic tradition actually describes him as Understanding what was going on and asking his father to tie him a certain way.

So when you look at this scene He wasn't justifying himself in the sense of before God and this is where the lingo kept getting screwed up in the debate

Oh, we believe that works are justifying somebody. Well, so do I I just don't think it's justifying

You before God that's already been done. It's demonstrating a Validation that that took place that act that moment that present moment that happened in Genesis 15

The mutated reality of faith produces works not maybe not might but will

This brought the completion Validation that was needed to demonstrate this man was truly a faith following God fearing person and so that's why he concludes in verse 24 you see that a person is justified by works and By faith but who was the challenge of justifying by works to not seeking to justify himself before God but before man and That's what this text is actually teaching in the end is that they're the justification of God leads to a

Justification before man and I even argued to Abraham himself because the

Angel the Lord remember what he says in Genesis 22 Now I know you fear

God God And so he proved himself to be genuinely following God in faith and It validated his own

Works his works validated himself Knowing I do fear God This is real.

I am so go ahead now. Yeah jump in please So back in Genesis 22 because I've I interact with a lot of Church Christ and I try to encourage people to understand

The Church of Christ are Roman Catholic light. They have less sacraments, but it's the same.

It's the same heartbeat It's the same mindset a lot of the similar argumentation and I've gotten into though I'm saying well, how can

Genesis 22 be before men, right? That was an awful place to go They could have went to a crowd of people and then they went to a mountain where no one was that and I've always remind

Him Isaac was there Abraham himself himself was there There was two travelers with them that Abraham said we will come back to you

Right Hebrews 11 says that he had faith in the Certainty even God would do something as miraculous or absurd as resurrect from the dead but resurrect from the dead

But he will keep his promise. So I'm like, oh, there's a lot of people that we're starting to see and then the angel the

Lord I love Calvin Calvin's commentary on this because he says God speaks not from on high

But on man's level showing that the just shall live by faith And so that's what we see wrapped up in Genesis 22

Oh, yeah millions and millions of Jews reading the Torah would see Abraham's faith being vindicated and I tell people that's the point that James is trying to illustrate to Christians here in this chapter saying look this is a vindication a

Demonstration of what saving faith always looks like. Is that a good way of looking at it? Oh, I 100 % agree and and that is exactly what

I wanted to spend That's why I asked the question I did who is being vindicated or what who's being justified before who here and they both

Tried to go to well both are being justified. Yes, but specifically And horn didn't answer that.

It was it was man. He pretty much said God I Don't see that anywhere in this text.

The challenge was you show me your works Are you show me your faith? I'll show you faith with my works now to answer the question

That's on the screen here. Somebody said oh, yeah, or explain verse 19 This goes back to where I think

Jimmy actually contradicted himself and Samuel actually called him out on it in the video a little bit because there's three forms of faith that Jimmy defined he and find the intellectual faith the the trusting in God and the form faith

And the form faith was trust love working together, which is like Galatians 5 6 We agree that the when he says the the angels believe or these demons believe in God and they shudder

They tremble. This is that they have an intellectual understanding of who God is

That is enough That's not enough to save you and and Samuel did a great job of trying to point that out at the very very beginning of The debate we're not saying that faith is some empty empty intellectual assent

That's not believing faith That is faith But it's not believing faith in the sense of we use their terms formed faith

Form faith is complete form faith is what you see in the text in verse 22 Faith was completed by his works.

That's form faith Demons had intellectual faith a lot of people have intellectual faith

But form faith is faith that is rooted in grace that mutates to works

That's Ephesians 2 grace Through faith to produce works you were created in Christ Jesus to produce good work.

So grace Salvation that leads to faith faith mutates into works. It's organic.

It's not forced. It's not something you have to conjure up Stephen something else

I try to bring out in James 2 is We're talking about a kind of faith can that faith save him and Always tell people or ask people what kind of faith is being talked about here if someone

Says and so if you're saying something it's based on that intellectual sense So you have a kind of faith that knows facts and says certain things, but it produces no fruit

Well, that is a useless dead faith before men and you better believe it's gonna be useless

Before God as well because I want to remind people even back in James chapter 1

It does talk about what what pure and undefiled religion is before God the fruit of justification

Is before God and so there is this multifaceted. Yes a true saving faith alone before God is never alone in the sense that it will produce sanctifying works of obedience to the glory of God and Will cause the rest of the world to be like hey something is different about this person and I got another question

About verse 19 because this is where I Obviously, there's an intellectual

Ascent by the demons they believe God very creedal knowing facts And then

I like to point out the demons do a kind of work. We're gonna be

Yeah, and I'm gonna say look there is an effect of what they know and that's still not enough to save because what what counts is

That fiducia that trust in King Jesus something that that demons don't do So is that a fair way of looking at verse 19 as well?

No, I agree There's still a reaction that faith still has a reaction But it's not a saving faith or a completed faith or a formed faith like you see at the end.

So even Ascending to God. I mean that's that's common sense If you assent to a

God that exists that is sovereign that is that is king and ruler it

Of course, it's gonna change the way you you act It's a reality. You now have to live in demons have to relive into the reality.

They are They are held accountable that they were a part of God's creation and that they are bound to things they have boundaries

They have limitations you now have to live into that even when a person comes to a scent that there's a true God Looking up and seeing that there's a

God in heaven That that does something that it creates an actual reaction in every person that comes to that assent

But that assent is not enough to change the heart You need repentance and faith towards God that that is demonstrated by grace

That is meant to integrate us into the system of grace Into Christ Jesus's righteousness that pours itself out

Organically just intellectual ascent does create a reaction but not enough of Transformation to the heart.

It's a beginning. It's a start, but it's not enough to to be what he called form faith You use the word mutate earlier

Did you want to bring some clarity on how you were using how faith mutates into works?

I think is what you said Yeah, so I think biblical faith that's infused by grace will mutate into works

I think that that that's what he's saying. That's why I don't like the term faith alone I think we all know what that means.

But as a result It gets misconstrued So if faith is infused by grace, it's a gift

Then that gift of God that has eternal life packed into it the righteousness of Christ packed into it

It's not going to remain isolated and alone It's going to mutate into another form and that is faith and works and that's

What's going on in the actual text of James 2? It's a mutated faith that was not just active faith of understanding and assertion of God Abraham believed

God and righteousness was infused into him. He was given and accounted righteous his faith

Did not stay in Genesis 15 his faith Continued to form itself in works.

He demonstrated that and I try to use this in the argument by sacramental understanding He circumcised himself.

He circumcised his sons. He circumcised his servants. He made a covenant with God He then covenanted himself.

He then lived in fear of God followed his directions listened to him Even when he struggled in faith with Isaac and didn't believe it at first his wife didn't believe it at first They came to faith.

They eventually believe God fully in their heart, even if they struggled to believe it at first This is what people of faith do they continue in faith?

Is it Calvin? He says we're justified by faith alone But justified faith is never alone meaning it will necessarily produce good works

Yes, which is why I say it mutates it's gonna turn into something more than just its isolated form and this is where Our reformed backbone comes in because a lot of people especially

Rome will push back and basically say well There's no guarantee right because they want to say initial justification is by faith

But it's still kind of up to you to take those You know libertarian steps of free will of faith and we're saying look the

Holy Spirit Indwells and seals believers like that train is moving somewhere. It's not a question that it will

Yeah, and that was Samuel's point in his opening. He he pulled and I've got his notes. Actually, let me pull him up He's got multiple verses.

I know he used Philippians 1 6, which that was kind of shrugged off Granted to you that for the sake of Christ Yeah, that's not only that you should believe in him, but also suffer for him

But so you are granted this this was something that was given to you Not because of anything you did but you are granted faith to believe and then he quoted

Philippians 1 6 that he that began a good work in you will perform it But again, if indicative is simply subjective when you need it to be then indicative is maybe there

So but again, this is where we start playing with the grammar I'm I never I'm one of those people who doesn't believe you should build an entire doctrine on a grammatical structure of mood and form

But but what what you can't do is also throw it out and make it what you want

Well, just because it's indicative there doesn't mean that it's indicative then go on to tell us why it's subjunctive

As if Paul didn't use the subjunctive in other places As if Paul didn't use subjunctive in other verb actions in reference to the people reacting to his commands

There are multiple subjunctives that are used but in this place It was independent on us.

He that began to work in you will perform it when we start making indicative subjunctives

Because we need him to be subjunctive. That's where we start getting in trouble And again, I'm not saying we build a whole doctrine on it

But there's multiple places like in John 5 like in Philippians 1 and other passages that he used

And like first John 5 for you, you know overcoming the world and how do we overcome the world our faith?

When you start seeing the notes that Samuel had pulled up These were not discussed the text were not discussed as much as they should have been but again

It's a short short debate with four people involved and it's hard to get Yeah, and our next clip

I have it titled two faiths So I think this is gonna relate back to some of y 'all's discussion in James 2

Are you okay if I cue that that clip up? Yep. Yep. So so going into Augustine he talks about baptism working through venial and mortal sins and Then he actually goes in specifically was talking about infants there and the original sin that they have and not yet had commit the others

When you look at baptism as a removal say it's a person who has accumulated both mortal and venial sins

When those are washed From your perspective. Why doesn't there need to be a re -baptism if there were mortal sins committed?

Because on a pause real quick because this is this is such a good question and Me and my typical or usual co -host

Trey Fisher aka the fishbone. This is the kind of question We asked the Church of Christ because they believe that your sins your past sins are remitted in water and then you come out with kind of that that fresh slate and a phrase that they use a lot of time

Stephen is In order to contact the blood of Jesus you have to go into the watery graves of baptism

So anyway, our whole thing is well if you walk if you walk away from the faith Do you have to get baptized again?

And they give a similar answer to old Jimmy over here So anyway, I just thought that was a good question.

Yes We're prohibited by divine law from applying baptism again

That's where in Ephesians Paul says there's one faith one hope one baptism. You can only be validly baptized once That's why confession is the second plank after baptism because you can't repeat baptism

So we need a second sacrament which Christ authorized on the day of the resurrection But do you need more than one faith to get back in No stutters.

Yeah, if you've You may not lose faith at all when you commit a mortal sin You may believe the

Christian faith it ceases to justify in faith It you you also do not you need to reacquire faith

You need to repent and turn back to the Christian faith. No, it's one faith You're embracing now.

You can if you wish try to logic chop here and say, oh well

Reacquiring faith you can reacquire faith in a way that you can't redo baptism

That would be a difference between faith and baptism, but it doesn't generate a logical contradiction

Yeah, I would say Protestants have a similar issue to deal with that Protestants make a distinction between the kind of faith that you would manifest to begin salvation like receiving

Christ as your Lord and Savior and That if you committed a grave sin in the Christian life, you don't have to receive

Jesus as your Lord and Savior again You just have to be reconciled with God So because baptism is the one act that makes us children of God and gives us an indelible mark that cannot be undone

The ways to restore friendship with God will always be different after baptism than before but wouldn't you say with that Trent that most

Protestants are not referring to the first two face that Jimmy mentioned in the beginning of his that it's just an intellectual that when we're speaking about faith

We're already assuming the third to be true and the others are inevitable So there's always going to be a continual faith

Not a broke a broken faith from one to another because we would say right I wouldn't you say that most

Protestants would say that Why I don't know exactly what was just summarized there. So I can't really agree to it

I guess you were logic chopping or something because well,

I mean I was using Jimmy's three faiths intellectual fiducial faith and form faith, so We would say that that person only had intellectual faith

That they had they had some level of faith, but it wasn't form faith we were

I was trying to use Jimmy's own definitions of faith saying but Protestants aren't saying they had form faith and Then they left the form faith.

We're saying they either had intellectual or potential fiducial faith but not formed and Their faith never was perfected or it only stayed in an intellectual scent

So, I don't understand maybe I guess I mean, I guess I heard it I could have been more clear

I always want to start with me. I could have been more clear. Maybe I should have been slower and said it more

You know succinct But what I was asking was is do you not think

Protestants would affirm? these people who get baptized and apostatized were a part of an intellectual faith category not a

Formed faith category and so that that was the point I was simply making there now

I Think Jimmy struggled a little bit with that answer on the first question about why not rebaptize?

So they believe as Catholics that if you baptize a child that child is guaranteed

This is where Anglicanism actually differs with Roman Catholic Church. We believe child can be baptized and be given grace and Abandoned that grace completely

Because we believe that baptism is a means of grace and that child is being given grace and he's given opportunities of faith and Practice and all that is setting in that child apart unto

God in the life of covenant and faith as a result that child Forgive you walk

All right, but I'm just explaining our differences here I'm just explaining our differences Rome says no matter what that child does they're in the church

Because they're baptized in the church So we say that child walks away from the faith they left grace and That they were never in it.

So let me explain that perhaps for many of your listeners here

Mm -hmm, we believe and and this is what Augustine was trying to say in his writings on perseverance

That someone can be graced by God embrace the grace of God in See God work

This is what I pointed out in Ephesians. The sacraments aren't enough to save you We see people that were a part of the sacraments who ended up abandoning

God I used the illustration of first Corinthians 10 where the people of God Were baptized into Moses.

They ate the spiritual food of heaven They drank the spiritual water that came from the rock which

Paul went on to say who is Christ. So they drank Christ And so they they they took spiritual baptism

They had a spiritual baptism and a spiritual activity of the divine food of God Eucharist and They died in the wilderness

Now if you go into the the later section I mentioned right after that lest we believe that doesn't apply in the

New Covenant The writer of Hebrews warns us the same thing in chapter 6 those who are once enlightened Which has always been our shouldn't row a church by to be baptism.

In fact the she to translates of baptism Those who tasted it of the heavenly gift that is

Eucharist and In experiencing that and that's how it's been interpreted in the early church to somebody can take

Eucharist take a baptism and still walk away from the faith and is impossible

To restore them again to repentance and then we actually got into this in the debate

Slightly in the second Peter which actually worked against their argument in my opinion worked for ours and I only had 12 seconds to say something

This was the concern that Peter had is that it would have been better for them to have never known the truth and to know

It walk away from it. Why because they were benefiting of the sacramental graces that God has given to his church

Somebody can live into the grace of God that God has bestowed his church God has blessed his church with sacraments

God has blessed his church with his love God has blessed his church with his mercy his covenant community has been graced and loved and cherished and adored and People can be in that community and experience all the gifts of grace around their life that never penetrates past anything in the brain to the heart and The point that Peter is making is is that there are teachers that came out of the church who are teaching damnable heresies

Who denied the Lord that bought them and the idea of the buying there and I explain this to people that talk about limited

Atonement, etc. The idea of that is it doesn't say Lord in the sense of couriosity. It's not about a master to a slave, right?

because Christ purchased the church and its Positions its ordinances and the ordinances were a gift to the church and somebody is in the place of a purchase position and Denies the very

Lord that gave that instituted position to the church and in denying the Lord that bought them

They brought damnable heresy under them's damnable heresy and judgment unto themselves And so the point

I was making and I only had like 12 seconds to make it in 2nd Peter is that that is not somebody who had faith lost faith and now was gone.

That's somebody who was grace -filled and Benefited of God's gifts to the covenant community and left it

That's the same thing that happened in the Old Testament. These people were tasting of manna of heaven They ate of the spiritual food.

They drank out of the rock it was Christ himself They went through the Red Sea under the baptism of Moses and still

Apostatized because they never they had grace, but not grace and Biblical faith that was infused and so therefore that was the argument that was being made here

And I think it's a bad answer to say. Oh, well, it's one faith Yes, you but you lose you got to come back to it, but you don't lose your baptism

I have to come back to it to see I did I disagree with them on that because as Anglicans we don't believe the baptism

Is it's like well, that's it, you know, nothing else needs to be done doesn't matter what they do They could hate

God and and curse his name for the next 50 years and all as well. No, no We think there's a major issue here.

And that is that grace was given but rejected So this is a question

I have and it's not totally deviate. So in the Anglican view So do you have?

Yeah so somebody that is regenerated by baptismal regeneration so they can eventually

Depart and apostatize that that used to be regenerated or is that my misunderstanding? so you

Know and I agree with Jimmy you don't have to be rebaptized That's the that was the point that we actually agreed on but didn't get into so in the

Anglican view you can be baptized and that is Not that is

God doing something for you That is the regenerational waters the grace was supplied for the faith of regeneration

Now somebody actually partakes of that sacrament and apostatize

Baptism is no good without faith That's why we believe in confirmation. So if a child is baptized, for example, they that it's not like You know, all right, they're good heaven set

It's the argument that Augustine makes about the the whole point that I brought to him about venial sins and mortal sins

Everybody is born into this world with original sin baptism of infants is for the washing of original sin so When you look at a child

They haven't committed venial sins or mortal sins or anything that they can consciously know

But they are born with an innate sin nature that needs to be washed So when a child comes to faith in the

Anglican tradition the child comes to faith They they their baptism and their faith are now one

They are one the grace and the faith come together and regenerated that person the power of the sacrament of baptism

Was regenerating and washing that child and sanctifying them unto the true call of faith once they've reached that call faith

They don't need to be baptized again. They are confirmed that the baptism of faith

Was was I don't want to use the word merge, but completed is probably a better word brought into full fruition

It's brought to its end and that person is in the faith for an adult same concept

Somebody can be washed and given grace. We don't believe baptism is something that you do for God We believe baptism is something

God does for you Hey, I yeah, I remember you making that point when I got a little shout -out on one of y 'all's videos over there facts

Facts yeah You know, it's wild I was rocking my

I was rocking my son it was maybe like 3 a .m. Like he was Tiny tiny and I was like, oh

Steven has a video on baptism. How about that? And then towards the end it was one of my shorts that I made a while back and I could not believe

I loved it I always loved the the charitable feedback. We you know, we were nice. I think we were nice Oh, I love like I said,

I just I could not believe it Yeah, yeah, yeah, but we will but we you know, there's a lot to go into that not to deviate from this

But but we agree with Jimmy you don't need to rebaptize him, but we would say that the faith they had was not

What he calls formed faith to begin with and so when they come back to repentance

We believe a lot of times in apostasy that a lot of past true apostasy is final like there is no return.

Mm -hmm Does seem more consistent with Hebrews 6 I definitely exactly that's what we've and and second

Peter for that matter So there you don't see that he says it's impossible to restore again a repentance, right?

That's why Peter said it had been better for them to have never known because there is no return

Jesus said the same thing in his gospel to the religious leaders believe the light while you have it unless you are

Left in darkness and then it said he hid himself so that they would not believe he was done. They were done

They were as Jude calls them twice dead. They're already walking

Spiritually dead men who are doomed after their second physical death into their second death after their physical death and it's sealed

It's finished. So there is no return That's what we would say. So that's why it's dangerous to to go through sacrament and experience sacrament and say yeah

You know what that whole God thing. I'm done with it. It's it's a dangerous thing Yeah, we have a question from Michelle she says

He says gifts to the church. Do you think that's both for the visible and invisible

Church elect and not elect? So, what do you say? Well, I think by implication the invisible church is what

Christ purchased the church. We don't call it the invisible church We call it the Catholic the

Universal Church So Christ Church was purchased by his blood. He gave some apostles some prophets and pastors teachers, etc

He gifted the church with these things It is in an in that gifting of the church universality

The local churches obviously are going to receive the source of that they are going to be the hands and the feet that produced the very acts and gifts of God and the

Holy Spirit through its people and its congregants, so These churches visible are experiencing it now the second half of the question was

Oh, I'll bring it back So, yeah visible and invisible

Directly invisible. Yes, but by implication visible and then there was a question about Part two.

Did you lose it? Nope, got it. I got it back. So elect and not elect.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah elect and not elect The non elect this is the point

I make the non elect can benefit From God's grace if they're in the covenant community

They may not have covenanted themselves To God, but they are benefiting from those

I mean with this this is what Paul taught in 1st Corinthians about a believing spouse with an unbelieving spouse

So two unbelievers one of them comes to Christ. They have children in the home Paul talks about the believing spouse sanctifying the unbelieving and Sanctifying the children

The believing spouse being in a home benefits Grace of God onto their unbelieving spouse and children

Now we teach that that sections teaching those children were baptized. But with that being said

There is a benefit to the unbeliever for being around God's people and It could be a good thing because as Paul said it could bring them to repentance but he also said who's to say you can bring your spouse back and actually bring him to the saving faith, so That's the danger if they leave let him leave

Paul said so so we have another question that kind of transitions to our next clip from the

Apologetics from the attic David Lewis Yeah, oh yeah David's Dave's the man and his his hotbox and the the attic where there's no air conditioning

He has a question. But like I said, we're gonna unpack this a little bit He says please comment on how

Jimmy at one point Insisted that the works of the law in Paul is merely the ceremonial law and thereby

They try to leave room for the moral law to justify So with that being said, we'll keep that question in mind because y 'all covered this

Pretty well in the Oz debate, but there was a lot of left on the table So you'll have a chance to we tried to touch this to be really or is it good deeds charity?

So what were you saying? No, I'll say we tried to touch this very very early on Samuel Yeah, this this took the longest time and I don't even know if we came to some level of consensus here because I thought

Just play the clip Yeah, and I sped this clip up So everybody lock in because they're gonna cover some ground

But I didn't want y 'all to be sitting out there for like 10 minutes So this is about two minutes now, but it's very fast

So check it out our works considered to be works of the law or is it good deeds charity and love? So the term works that Paul uses has been understood differently sometimes it's understood to refer specifically to Actions done in order to fulfill the

Mosaic Law and Sometimes it is used has been understood to be used to refer to just a good deed In the Catholic tradition there have been advocates of both viewpoints that when

Paul says he's talking about when he says we're saved by faith It not works. What he means is works of the Mosaic Law. Some others have said or added to that and also

We're not saved by good deeds. We're not justified by good deeds We don't do good deeds to get into a state of justification. They flow from the state of justification

So both options both interpretations are available My personal opinion is that if you study Romans and Galatians carefully when

Paul uses the phrase works and doesn't add a clarifier to it He almost invariably is talking about works of the Mosaic Law like circumcision.

That's his big test case That's why he bring it's not be kind to your neighbor. It's circumcision He's talking almost exclusively about works of the Mosaic Law when he wants to connote good works

He typically adds a qualifier to it like good. So so in Ephesians 2 for example He says you're justified by grace and not by works meaning works the

Mosaic Law because he's just been talking about how Jews and Gentiles Are united together in the church, but God created us in Christ for good works So there's a difference between the initial works

He talks about without qualifier and the good works he recommends for us, but it's true either way you go We don't do works of the Mosaic Law to get into a state of justification and we don't do good works to get into a

State of justification. It's a gift of God All right I just responded by saying that I don't see

I have to respectfully disagree with my more esteemed Interlocutor here that there's a distinction between good works in Ephesians 2 and 8 and within verse 9 and 10

And the reason I think they're dealing with the same thing Of course, I do realize that Paul may be alluding to the Mosaic Law earlier when he says not by works because he does reference Jews and Gentiles But if you distinguish the two then it doesn't flow that we're not saved by works

But then Paul goes on to say that God created us for good works There must be some sort of synonymity between the works in the first case and the second All right,

Stephen or Trent Yeah, and I would just agree. I would say that Paul is contrasting He's noting that there are works of the law or works of Torah.

There might be another way to look at it So now Romans 2 6 uses the Greek word works But it's just talking about God will reward glory and mortality to those who do good works in Ephesians 2

It's not just before verses 8 It's also verses 11 through 14 and 15 verses 11 through 15 talks about how they've broken down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing

His flesh the law of commandments and ordinances I would say there that we are talking about it is not works of Torah that bring you into the covenants as they once did

Maybe in the past so there's a distinction made between the Jew and Greek distinction and the necessity of the Mosaic Law But Paul is very clear though that through God's grace.

He did make good works for us to do Yeah, I would I would say that the good works are a product of the faith They don't proceed they follow but he also in other places like in Titus says it's not by works of righteousness

Rather than using good works or terms like that that we have done according his mercy. He saved us So there's there's also an aspect to where I think if we get lost in the word works here too much whether it's

Mosaic obedience Because that would be a dependence on Mosaic Law over against the gospel of Christ and its message by faith and then also self -produced Good deeds because at the end of the day almost all good deeds that are produced by works can be found somewhere in the moral

Law or even in the neighborly laws that you find in the little stand So at the end of the day, I don't know if we can separate those two things They all end up finding themselves back in Torah Anyway, we're defining the character of God because all the law is to begin with is

God character put on display Ceremonial laws or perhaps sacrificial laws when it comes to the moral law of God is just repackaged and revealed in a much bigger more dynamic

Way by Jesus in the gospel teachings, so I don't know if I would get lost in the terms here So I really appreciate what you said there towards the end of saying look

Everything no matter how you want to splice this It's all gonna kind of go back to Torah Written on the heart not tell me if I understood you correctly because I've thought about this a lot too in fact,

I do want to reference a scripture that See if I can bring it up. Okay, because I get in debates a lot with justification and You know people are saying define works now

I like just saying what whatever works you're gonna put forward it's gonna pale in comparison to the works of God the works of God especially vindicated through the works of God In the city and from Mount Sinai right the moral law because the the works of Moses Sorry, I'm trying to get my terms lined up in my head

They are holy righteous and good and we always will fall short of that standard. So everything that and this is

Definitely feel free to push back with me but everything you do is flowing out of either positive positively for love

God love neighbor or We're gonna fall short of that standard Everything whether you're trying I would argue to some reasonable extent of saying look the command to be baptized

I don't think you like you've rightly said We're not trying to to do necessarily anything to earn favor with God by being

Obedient to a command I get how this Changes when you're you know Maybe baptizing a child and actually want to say that is a picture of something that they are not

Contributing to God at all. It's being done to them So I actually appreciate some of the imagery there but I love the the terminology of these are sanctifying commands of obedience and we're not going to disparage the law gospel distinction in this because if it's it's if it's sanctifying then it is

Gospel in terms of we're doing this out of obedience to God not to earn anything But to the praise of his glorious grace is how

I'd put it But what I what I try to push for is in Romans 3 here Then what becomes of our boasting it is excluded by what kind of law by the law of works

No by the law of faith And I really want to hear your thoughts with this because when he says but by the law of faith

Well, it's by the principle of faith And so we see a principle of works of saying that the things that you do and obedience to a command

These are not the things that are gonna make you right before God and oh, yeah The the highest one on the totem pole is

The the works of Moses rather the the command of Moses the Mosaic law because it's holy

Righteous and good you fall short of that standard So do you want to chime in to that because I can go long -winded on some of these conversations

Yeah, the issue that I was trying to point out that maybe is gonna intersect with what you're saying

We were getting so boggled down with the idea of works whether or what that that's Moses and law of circumcision

Moses's law also was summarizes love the Lord your God with all your heart your soul your mind your neighbors yourself

So and that all the law and the prophets are hinging on those Commandments so why are we arguing about what works here now to Specifically call out the option that Paul was dealing with in the works the law is that people were trying to especially in Galatians trying to affirm their status with God on the basis of Circumcision or on the basis of we have the law

We have Moses's law The problem with that is this this is this is the issue that I had with their argument on baptism

Mmm, because Because I think baptism replaced circumcision, but anyway

Colossians 2 it's right there When you go into the argument here, let's just say it does even if you disagree.

Just let's say it does Let's follow that analogy the the Circumcision was not what saved

Abraham it's not what saved his son who was circumcised. It wasn't what saved

The servants if you go back It's what gave grace and I and I demonstrate this because people go all the time to me and they're like well

How could Peter call a lot a righteous man? just lot right well because he was with Abraham and benefited from the grace through Circumcision he himself was clearly not living out

The righteous life in the way that he was doing things But he was circumcised because he was with Abraham after Abraham believed

God was kind of righteous brought all the servants and those that were with Him circumcised lot would have been a part of that, too

Why was he rescued out of the city because he was set aside and sanctified by God in a covenant now all that to say

These things aren't enough to save you Baptism can't save you in of itself neither can

Somebody who is trying to strive at the law or obey the law or be circumcised in the law

Moses So ceremonially I agree with them in Galatians that these are people good works was based on Moses but at the same time

I Disagree with them on Ephesians because Ephesians does distinction there

That we are created for good works So good works are in mind the same thing as I brought up in Titus chapter 2, which nobody

Thought to even respond to it's not by works of righteousness that we've done but according to his mercy, right?

So again When you're talking about the culmination of the law the only thing that we can really do here is say is

Paul speaking of the Ceremonial law of God and the covenant aspects of it from circumcision to sacrifices or are we talking about like what you're referring to the actual moral law of God as Revealed in what was received on the mount

Which can be summarized and love God love your neighbor in every act that we do either violates that or not so Again, but they're all in the law of Moses.

You could put all of those in the Mosaic law The law and I mentioned this the law is just merely putting

God's character on display and giving men a mirror To see their depravity.

That's what it is So how you want to frame works there? I think was was almost an a moot point and I thought

Samuel Actually answered them pretty well on the Ephesians 2 part in Samuel a reformed

Baptist Samuel is a closet Lutheran In a

Baptist world, so I Have a lot of love for my my

Lutheran brothers out there brothers and sisters, so well, thank you for talking on The issue of works because once again, that's a big issue when

I'm talking to the Church of Christ Because I mean they have a five -step formula

Baptism washes away past sins and you have to continue to live a holy life in order to retain

Salvation there's a conflation between justification and sanctification with Church Christ. So that's a little bit of my ministry where I contend and Evangelize the

Church Christ. So like I said, I think they're just Roman Catholic light and a lot of the issues come down to They this is where This is where I'm very charitable in these conversations of those that affirm that we are justified by faith alone now we get into those further discussions how

Justified faith is never alone because it always produces works and that's to your point is it vindicates us before others?

Certain, you know partaking in the sacraments is giving us assurance so that I think those are great things to be mindful of but those groups that carry a

Fundamental denial of Justification before God by faith alone to me.

You you have denied the only gospel that saves and That's why you're on essentially to talk about justification.

Do you want to add anything? Yeah well I think that the issue that happens in a lot of these churches is that and I made the same mistake when

I was in more of the Baptist circles is that we go it's got to go in this order

Justification sanctification glorification, but actually the scripture teaches that sanctific sanctification can happen to a person before justification

I gave a perfect example in first Corinthians where the the believing spouse sanctifies

The unbelieving spouse that could lead them to justification. I think God sets us apart

From day one, I think God for his children his elect if you would he's setting us apart and I don't know of a single person who's come to save in Faith who looks back at their life before they became a

Christian that doesn't see God's grace in their life Doesn't see God changing them God working in their heart

God moving them in Circumstances that put them in the right place at the right time to get to hear the gospel

And it's fullest and to come to repentance or circumstances that put them on their knees to do that God is setting us apart to himself even before the moment of transformation and so Sanctifying things like this is that's what circumcision was supposed to do.

It was setting you apart to be in the covenant of God by Abraham's faith following and Again, we do the same thing for children and we do the same thing in every way because we believe

God's grace is sanctifying us and A lot of these movements like the Church of Christ, for example

They they they have this warped view of God with the idea of Sanctification their sanctification view is wrong.

And then their justification is so conflated It's like it's so mixed up that actually justifications and sanctification are inseparable

And that's the point sacraments. Well, I say it's justifying us before ourselves It is but it's also a sanctifying a sanctifying element

So they're not inseparable and they've done nothing but separate these things too much

Yeah, where I agree with you about there is a kind of sanctification that happens in the life of the elect

I would I would try to articulate before justification happens where your whole life is

Being guided by the the sovereign hand of God Setting you apart, right

We see that language with the Apostle Paul and his and his mother's womb with the Prophet Jeremiah Like Jeremiah God's at work with John John the

Baptist So I think we would agree though There's a kind of being set apart where faith is not apparent in the heart

But that's due to the providence of God. Like you said the children are made made holy there. There is a

Special grace that's being had and so I've I've benefited from the teachings of dr

White and he's always made those distinctions and so I think maybe we're close there and maybe to your credit maybe a lot of Baptists don't think in those categories like look

God is Setting up the plane way before you come to that moment of saving faith

Justification before God he's already been at work in your life in many ways Agreed now someone did ask and we got we got two more clips left and thank you so much for your time

Yeah, and so just let me know when you need to dip out We do have two left talking about future sins what that looks like and then talking a little bit about Judas Iscariot How are you doing on time?

Well, let's just do Judas on that one. I'll answer the question Yeah Question what was the question?

Yeah, someone had a question Sparky one of our mods out here. She said Does dr.

Boyce believe justification can happen before baptism? So this is a good question actually was brought up in the debate,

I think I mm unless I was dreaming we talked about We talked about how somebody who dies before they reach the baptismal waters.

We were talking about catechumens There's there's different types of baptisms that are described.

I remember y 'all talking about that. But yeah, but it was in the debate I knew I went crazy Yeah, baptism of blood the desire of baptism were kind of the two being brought out.

Yes. Yes in addition the baptism So by that definition, yes With keeping what what you the other baptisms like if somebody if somebody came to believe in God by faith and That night they died in a car wreck

Never reached the baptismal waters. We don't go. Oh, well, they're just too bad

You know, they they had the right faith, but the wrong method. No, no, we don't believe that We believe there's the baptism of desire and the early church fathers speak extensively about these things

Those that were in catechumen. I mean a lot of people in the early church were put in Coliseum's they were killed and they were right in the process of getting ready for their baptisms and they were still thrown into Coliseum or crucified or beheaded and And They're baptized with the baptism of blood because Jesus, you know, and I know that some of your listeners may go with what different baptisms

What are you talking about? Okay, you have to admit that Jesus even talks about a baptism He says I have a baptism that he asked

John and James specifically can you take of the baptism that I am going to be baptized with and That sermon you were critiquing me a little bit on I try to get you listen the whole thing cuz

I talked about all the different baptisms there, but that's okay Well, you only played a short clip. I only watch What it would you put a second clip or something?

I don't know. Yes, but I sent you the link to the whole No, no,

I appreciate it Steve. Hey, I appreciate your time Let's go and play that last clip so we can hear y 'all's discussion about Judas Iscariot a little bit

Samuel question in Luke chapter 10 verse 20 was Judas written in heaven at one point and lost it It was very blurry come on my night,

I know exactly what you're talking about It's so blurry. I was like, what is that number?

I was like, I don't remember verse 90 in chapter 10 of Luke Marlon's gonna watch this later and be like you guys are dogging me

Alright That says nevertheless do not rejoice in this that the spirits are subject to you But rejoice that your names are written in heaven

I would assume that they're tying that to Judas because the 70 have just come back and Judas like the rest of the 12 We've been among the 70

One of you is a devil so my argument is a simple one Say it was not true. He was a genuine apostle and that's a scary part

You can be a genuine apostle minister to the ministry of Christ and still not be safe That's the whole point and so I'm looking at John chapter 17 specifically for this

Was 12 don't accept it was Jesus's. I have not lost those any of those you had given me except the one I don't think so Well, I'm not sure

And I would say it's not speculative like if you look at Matthew 1928 Jesus says to the Apostles you who have followed me will also sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel that seems to Be directed to all 12 and that would include

Judas and I couldn't imagine that a genuine apostle who was an actual devil could really Sit on a throne judging people unless at that time. He was still in fellowship

He had not fallen away yet And so that makes more sense of John 17 12 when it said that I've lost none But the son of perdition that he was he was given over but he actually did lose something

So actually see that criticism says on this particular verse He says what it means is at least for my part. I will not lose them, but they can certainly lose their own salvation

I would add that the 12 is often the group necessarily because by the end of this is 14 And typically got even in how

Paul used the group of the 12 later on for 15 only referencing 11 of them It's back to 10 days a separate and see this but yet he called it Well, so I think that it's more civic to the group than the individuals because at the end

They went to 14 possibly of Mathias and Paul and that's how it's even referenced in the new city in Jerusalem So I think that could be the whole group not every minute and I'm not committed to arguing that Judas was at one time saved

But I would acknowledge that the evidence Supports at least facially supports what trenches said because Jesus does speak of the 12 including

Judas sitting on 12 thrones Which on its face makes it sound like he saved and similarly in John He says I have lost none But this one predestined one and the verb lost implies he once had him

So at least facially that makes it sound like Judas was saved similarly He says I've chosen you yet one of you is a devil that says some very interesting things about the concept of election for Calvinist You can be chosen and yet be a devil.

Oh No, there's a problem there for Calvinist. Not really. I think that But it's like Jimmy ignored everything.

I just said That I just got done saying

That Jesus chose the 12 now. I did a whole series on facts on why did Jesus choose 12 disciples?

Your followers can feel free to go back and watch that episode Actually, that one may have been before the

YouTube dates. You have to listen to that one. That was before YouTube So it's on the podcast. Why why 12 apostles and I did a series on all 12 fossils how they died

I Don't understand why everything I just said was ignored because all

Jimmy did was restate what Trent had said When I just got done saying why are we affirming that this would be the literal 12 men when we know there was more than 12

Apostles, there's 12 names of the Apostles written in the New Jerusalem Which 12 because there's 14

If it's in there and yes, have I not chosen 12 of you and one of you is a devil

Yes, he he did say those words, but we talked about Judas. He was a son of perdition the son of destruction

And he was never perceived in the mind of John especially it was very hard in Judas That he was actually a true follower.

He was a thief from the beginning And so Jesus knew why he chose

Judas the way that he did and that it worked into the plan of God To ultimately bring in the betrayal that ultimately actually created the greatest redemptive story in the world

But with that being said Why is this so hard to believe that when he was talking to the 12?

in Matthew that Trent brought up that he's referring to the group and I illustrated that in Paul's writings in first Corinthians 15

When there really wasn't even 12 people at that point, but yet it was the group of the 12 So I I'm not sure why that just got passed over the way it did it reminded me of When Jimmy debated dr.

White and I think it was his I don't remember which debate if is the first second one But his rebuttal was

Oh Dr. White is just quibbling about words and then disregarded dr

White's opening presentation and just went into a canned spiel, you know, I'm talking about. Yeah.

Yeah, that was the The one that did two debates. I think that was in the first one I think that was their first night or second might have been their second night.

I remember yes. Yes. Yes yeah, he talks about you know amongst words and stuff, but I mean that's what half this debate was about and it went from justification to Purgatory it went from justification to Perseverance and eternal security and things like that, which we we didn't take that bait

Samuel and I were corresponding to that point. We made absolute sure we were not going to go into that You know, it's like well pick a choose pick a church father that speaks of eternal security

After we already acknowledged after we already acknowledged That You look at the church fathers.

You cannot put Terms on them that we're using that they themselves did not use they they describe these avenues

I mean their statements in Cyprian their statements in August in which they acknowledge that they acknowledge that Augustine does teach a predestination to The perseverance of the

Saints and then they asked for a name I gave them Augustine and then That wasn't good enough because there's two categories.

There's two categories of the elect and then those that are predestined not to persevere Okay, let's just say that's exactly what

Augustine meant because we didn't get time to go into that I still gave you a church father who believed that there was going to be those who were elected to persevere

You asked for one. I gave you one. He's not the only one Cyprian Gave similar connotation that Augusta was doing

I think Augusta actually perfected with Cyprian but to get into all that get into origin origin made a few interesting statements about it to get into any of that would have

Completely rocked the debate away from justification because at that point we were gone and the timer

I think when that was brought up was a total of I don't know two minutes left We're supposed to have it and you you're challenging us to pull up entire church father quotes to use

Protestant Reformation terminology in less than two minutes in a debate on justification

At that point it wasn't even worth it for us I mentioned Augustine and you saw how quickly that blew up and by the time they said just go read it for yourself the timer went out so Again, the debate wasn't on that and we felt like in India I'm telling you

I saw my messages pulled up from Samuel Samuel. We felt like it was a bait -and -switch question We are determined we weren't gonna answer it in the manner they wanted it answered because they would have taken the whole debate away from Justification into perseverance of the

Saints and the debate wasn't on perseverance of the Saints if anybody's watching very carefully They would note that that was a bait -and -switch on us.

I don't know. I don't think it was intentional I'm missing as malicious. Sure. I'm just saying it was a bait -and -switch because we we did actually

Move around in different words because that was never the point and then I gave one single example and they admitted

That there was a church father that taught perseverance of the Saints through election But don't forget he had a second category of those who were elected not to persevere.

It's like yeah, but okay That aside you just admitted that he taught perseverance by election

Therefore you have a church father as an example. So Yeah, somebody in the chat is telling us that Purgatory was brought up and that kind of didn't feel like that was hitting the the main thrust of y 'all's debate either

Yeah, and that was kind of frustrating because if you go back and watch that section very carefully I said

He said do you believe that the sins of the present and future still have to be dealt with? I said yes

And then he said no, that's all I just know I just need a yes or no, and they said so we all agree. We all agree at the level purgatory.

No, no, no You believe in a place called purgatory. We believe in a process called sanctification

Mmm, and and and but but I didn't get to say that because I was cut off and it wasn't in my turn

So and again, they have a revisionist view of purgatory him and Trent both They're trying to turn purgatory into a president and Trent brought this up in his debate with James White That purgatory could even be happening now, that's more of a revisionist view of purgatory.

That was not the original Publication of the idea of purgatory, which is much much later so Yeah, I don't like Being asked a question that trapped me into agreeing with them on purgatory

Because yeah, that's what they were shooting for You're asking me well, I had I had a guy who texted me in the middle of the day and I had

But I had notifications. He said that was dishonest As I yeah,

I kind of but yes, do you believe most Catholics in in the traditional sense believe in the place of purgatory

We do believe in a pot Purgatory is just it's a purge We believe in a purging process before Glorification, but we believe it's happening on planet earth.

Not some inter domestic, you know middle ground something

We believe it's happening on earth and that at the moment of meeting Jesus in the resurrection

We are changed as he is We are in our process of sanctification is over our battle with sin is over and I even mentioned the debate

Because they were talking about. Oh, well, you know, what do you do with your your internal sin or people sitting in hell? Yes, but you gotta remember in the kingdom of God.

There is no devil. We're not tempted externally by him There is no worldly system that is ran by him.

So we're not tempted by the system of the world So there's more Bringing us to sin than just in the inside.

I think our greatest enemy is us But the there is an enemy beyond us There is a culture that seeks to trap us into sin.

So yeah, I don't I don't even know why purgatory was brought up Someone in the side chat was saying

Wondered if anybody saw that Sam Shimon your best friend Steven. Just kidding And the comment section was saying that the

Catholics got them to admit that Rome is correct so Obviously, there's some bad faith going on there.

If anybody knows who Sam Shimon is, but I thought hey Dr. Steven, I think y 'all did a great job

And when when y 'all are being asked about future sins and you know being reformed Tell me if this is how

I've explained it so like when you're justified By faith past present future like because Jesus is righteousness is perfect and that's imputed on your behalf

And so yes that that covers all your sins But during your life of sanctification the just shall live by faith

Experientially we we have relationship with the Lord and we confess our sins knowing that he is perfectly just To forgive us a lot of that is

First John saying yes, we still have that advocate who continues Romans 8 to intercede on our behalf

And so it's it's and and forgive me. Let me see here if you can see it You see these commentaries up here all

Johnny Mac. I remember back and back in the day He explained these profound categories to me vertically all your sins

Judicially declared right before God just as if you never sinned and then we we live out

Relationally our walk with with the Lord and then we pray for forgiveness of sins But knowing that he's never going to bring a charge

Of condemnation back to us. So anyway, I think that was hard that was being lost I think a little bit just with all the the interaction between four people.

So it was hard Yeah, that was brought up briefly I and I mentioned because actually Jimmy's the one that brought up the advocate of John chapter 2 and I mentioned that you know when you look at John's gospel prior to that his big thing was fellowship

You lose your salvation there's fellowship with God and one another that yeah, that's good And we confess our sin for that purpose

And then I also pointed out a eternal security verse and I don't like the term eternal security but Where whoever's you know has the seed remain in him does not practice sin, right?

So Again what that's why true believers do persevere because they do not

Practice sin because there's a new nature in them that won't let them But I'm a

Calvinist on that part, but I'm a mild Fanatic Calvinist and most people that actually get to know me they realize like oh

I don't spend my life talking about Calvinism and I actually talk about other things Unlike my opponent, you know late flowers who only talks about he talks about Calvinism more than I do for every time

He says Calvinism. He's like a hundred to one on me. I Don't even use the trial.

He didn't call myself a Calvinist. There's too much bad blood with it but if somebody put me on a you know a

Trial or something I'd have to admit that I affirm all five points But I don't

I would also repackage them reword them and re Very a lot of very good point. So I'd be right there with anyway

Steven thanks so much for coming on Is there any last things that you would like to tell people once again where they can find you at and your content and everything?

Like that sure. Yeah, I always again. Thanks Jeremiah for having me on those is good review.

There's a lot here Thanks for just give me the platform to do that Also again, if you missed it earlier, you can find my podcast and ministry facts

FACTS look for the Jerusalem cross. You can also type it in with my name on any platform That's Doing podcasts.

I'm a seven or eight I believe and then also we just recently been moved over to YouTube We also have a

Facebook page. You can follow us on there. We also have a Twitter you can or X You can find us on there as well

FACTS father's apocryphal canon text and scripture. Well, thank you again so much

Hey, we'll have to do this again and you need a Baptist to come on facts Something that we might can talk about is a little bit of eschatology

I spend a lot of time warring against hyper preterism just because there's an uptick of that in Arkansas land and so people keep reaching out to me left and right and I'm like,

I gotta explain these things But I've been able to speak at conferences on it So maybe that's something we can do in the in the future and you could tell us about the early church what they viewed eschatology

Yeah, yeah. Well it Hyper preterism doesn't work. So yeah, I'd love to love to have that discussion.

That'd be fun All right, dr. Boyce. Well, thanks again. You have a blessed rest of the evening God bless.

Thanks Well, thank you all for tuning in to the apologetic dog You like how

I opened up pretending to be Anthony Rogers for a moment with post inner bus Lux out of darkness light

Love that man's ministry and I've learned so much from dr. Stephen Boyce. You see that there's a little bit of Disagreement between us but we're we still agree on so much and what

I hope you caught is he wholeheartedly affirms that Justification is by faith alone.

There is nuance to that we talked about how there is a justification before God, but that will necessarily lead to a vindication of that faith working out in love before man and Participating and things like baptism and the

Lord's Supper that will give you assurance and what God has already begun in your heart in your life So I appreciate that when he reached out to me to do this debate review.

I was excited I was like, I would love to do that. So If you've benefited from this ministry,

I do ask that you would please like and if you haven't subscribed, please do that Because it means so much to the ministry that just seeing that this channel has been growing

At a faster pace in the past. So I'm very thankful to the Lord for that So thank you all for your support and until next time be on the lookout

I have some exciting announcements just around the corner. We gotta wait till next time. Thanks so much.