Ask Your Hardest Questions

Was Andrew the one that helped you get the podcast back up? Yeah, he did get the podcast.

You didn't help me. He did it. Don't you think you owe him a dinner for that? This is

Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your most challenging questions that you have about God and the

Bible. I am Andrew Rappaport, the Executive Director of Striving for Eternity and the Christian Podcast Community, of which this podcast, well, it's a live stream that becomes a podcast, is a proud member.

I will bring in, well, I'm going to let him bring himself in because he has controls, is our co -host,

Drew. Howdy. What's going on? Not too much. Now, you know,

I had that opening there. I had to start with that opening because, well, I was in Utah this past weekend and Utah Christian Research Center, if you're out in that area,

Draper, Utah, I got to tell you, Drew, you would love to go to the Utah Christian Research Center.

I was amazed how much they packed in, in one small little building. So you walk in, you walk in up front and they have all kinds of archaeology for the

Bible. Then you go you a little bit further and they do these tours and tours can go for like three, four hours.

The first half of the tour is all on the Bible. So you go into manuscript evidence. They go through all the textual criticism, get into how we got the

Bible. They show some some old Bibles that they have, go through explaining the

Bible, why the Bible is trustworthy. From there, you go in toward the back. So it's basically two rooms with a hallway.

You go into the back and that's all the Mormonism. So they start in the front all about the Bible to bring people in to say that the

Bible can be trusted. That's number one thing Mormons end up being told that the Bible wasn't isn't reliable.

It's not trustworthy because it wasn't translated properly. And so what they do is they bring people in and explain the truth of the reliability of Scripture and then go in the back room and show issues with Mormonism.

Joseph Smith, multiple wives, you know, the gold plates. If folks don't know that there's some of that, you can call in and ask questions.

We'll explain this. But they have the gold plates that, you know, would have weighed about 120 pounds that Joseph Smith says he carried three miles while being shot at and chased by a bear.

So he ran three miles carrying gold plates that weigh a hundred. Like even if you they keep trying to figure out to get it down.

They say that it was like 40 pounds, but it was gold. So it wouldn't have been like it gives the exact dimensions.

So, yeah, it wouldn't have at the best you could do is 80 pounds. And you're not running three miles carrying 80 pounds under your arm.

One running three miles carrying nothing. Yeah. While being chased by bears and people shooting at you.

Just say that's another thing. You're not running three miles away from a bear, either. That's faster than you are.

Yeah. So, you know. So, yeah. So we go out there. So I did eight sessions, eight apologetic sessions, a debate with Matt Slick and then preached on Sunday.

So we did Thursday, Friday, Saturday. We deal with topics of textual criticism, how to trust the

Bible, the uniqueness of Christianity, Roman Catholicism, how to defend the faith, apologetic social justice.

So a slew of topics. Then Matt Slick and I did a debate on the charismatic gifts.

He believes they continued. I believe they haven't. Now, it was quite interesting.

And that debate will be released by the Utah Christian Research Center on their YouTube channel on July 1st.

So you can check that out there. And so the history, though, there's a little bit of history with that opening.

And that is the fact that, well, it took Matt nine years to outsmart me and buy me a meal.

And so he made the comment on his radio show that everyone should go out to the center for the debate.

And he told people to come up to me and tell me that I owe Matt a meal.

And so to make it sound like like, you know, he did this with with Bill McKeever for years, too, to like he owed

Bill a meal. But he tells everyone to tell Bill that Bill owes him one. So needless to say, we go out for dinner after on Friday night after I get done teaching.

And I and by the way, the other two topics were the Trinity and deity of Christ. I should mention all the topics.

So I get done teaching about the deity of Christ. We go out for a meal and Matt decides, well, we're going to go to a pizza place.

Oh, it's going to be closed. So Matt decides, let's go to this Mexican place. So he figures, well,

Andrew doesn't know Spanish so well. So I could talk to the way the cashier and explain to her that he should know that he wants to buy my meal.

Now, though I don't know Spanish that well, I do know Matt that well. So I knew exactly what he was doing.

So when she took the credit card and put it behind the cash register, I knew what that was for. So Matt decides, well, now that he's got that all taken care of, he can go use the restroom.

So as he walks around the corner, I just turn to the waitress, to the cashier.

And I point to the you know, to the where they have all the food as I'm going to go orders. Why? So she would turn and look up.

So as she turns, I reach over, I pick up Matt's credit card and I take mine out.

And she's like she goes, well, the guy in front of you is paying for it. And I hold up his card and she like looks down, looks up and goes, oh.

And I said, yeah, we're going to use my card. So Matt comes around the corner as she's now like she's just about to ring up with my card.

And Matt's like smiling because he thinks he's got me. And I lift up his credit card so he could see.

And I said, use my card. And so she puts it in just as Matt's like, no.

This is a this is a epic feud that has been going on for a very long time.

Yeah, from what I understand to my count, he's only gotten you one time.

One time. Live on this show. Yep. Which was really good, but it's only been one time.

Yeah, that was the 100th episode. So, yeah. Yep. Matt turns to me and says, you're a jerk.

Of course, I made him explain why I'm a jerk during the debate. I don't know if it was on camera when we were off, but yeah.

That's funny. That's funny. But I understand you have some sort of a in the news clip about a transgender man.

Help me understand. What is a transgender? OK, so from what

I can gather, a transgender is someone who thinks they were assigned a gender at birth.

They don't identify with that gender. And so they transition into another gender, the opposite gender.

Yeah, it's always the opposite gender. And they're very marginalized and people mistreat them.

So no one actually wants to be transgender. Right. That's their argument. They always say, I would think no one can handle this.

No one wants to be it. You know, we're so few, so few. And they're they're so it's just this curse they have to deal with because people so mistreat them.

Yeah. So there's there was in the news was a person

I forget they're running for for Congress or in Congress. I forget a woman who claims she is a man that is transgender to a woman.

In other words, a woman who claims to be a woman, but she's wants to make sure she's got her intersectionality points.

So she claims she's a male transgender back into a woman.

Folks, the left has lost their minds. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me hold on.

This is a a natural woman. Right. Biological woman who claims she's a man.

OK, so she claims she's transgender. Yeah. She identifies as a man. But so as a man, she identifies back as a woman.

She is a she's a biological woman. Yes. Who identifies as a woman, but as a transgender woman.

OK, wow. That's where you go. You know, you didn't transition into anything, right?

This is why I didn't want to tell you this beforehand, because I thought your reaction would be classic. This is this is people just going,

I want attention. I want attention. There's nothing wrong with me, but I want attention. I mean, and that's that's it.

That's what this whole movement. That's what all of this really is about is attention. Right. So when when

June hit where I live, we don't have pride parades. Right. The town

I live in, the small town I live in, we don't have pride parades. But people were asking me what to do.

Yeah. So left out. I know. But in some of the county groups that I'm in, people were asking, is there going to be a pride parade?

And so I would comment under and I'd say, hey, if there is, who wants to join me in doing evangelism at the pride parade if they decide to do one?

And so people were coming in and saying, why are you shoving your religion down their throats and blah, blah, blah and all this stuff?

And I said, hey, I'm not the one doing a parade. I'm not the one that has to have a parade to show off my deviancy to shove it down everyone's face.

I'm not shoving it down everyone's face. I'm just showing up at the parade, giving Christ.

It's them who has to have the parade to put on display their debauchery. That's right.

OK, so let me see. KT said, how was the line of Jewish ethnicity traced biblically through fathers or either parent?

I think it would be. Well, it is interesting because the religion Judaism is passed through the mother, but the lineage would have been passed through the father.

We did this. We went over this a while ago when we had that discussion with Ben Zion about the lineage of Christ.

And then he said he actually said it's passed. He said it's passed through the father. There's no instance where it goes from the father and crosses to the mother and then continues until we pulled out a lineage that did that.

Yeah. Oops. All right. So John says,

I will be watching the show live rather than listening to the podcast on my street outreach tomorrow.

God bless your ministry. So if you're watching live, John, why don't you join us? Since you've sent both of us some comments about cessationism, because we would like to discuss that with you.

Now, let me get to some emails that I got so we can respond to some.

We got this one in. This is a little bit of a longer one, Drew. But this was after we had the guy that was talking mental illness.

And, you know, it was getting there was a long like what, three and a half hours of, you know, where he was took up two and a half of it just and then called us all kinds of names and then said that we were calling him the names he called us.

But anyway, so I got this. Good morning. I am a podcast listener of both

The Rap Report and Apologetics Live. By the way, The Rap Report is my other podcast.

I do Andrew Rapport's Rap Report. Just search for Rap Report with two Ps. OK, back to email.

Unfortunately, I cannot catch it live, but I listen back through the week. The debate format is one that is engaging and edifying.

I appreciate that scripture is used to interpret culture and not the other way around.

I have suggestions for three episode topics, one of which you've already covered.

OK, so here's some topics we're going to have to think about doing and one that was already covered, but we're going to do more. The mental health episode was a topic

I was very interested in, at least in the US. We've all seen the prevalence of increased dramatically in recent decades.

I think the church is afraid to address it precisely because it has been medicalized.

The gentleman who came on to express his opinion unwittingly made your point for you.

As an aside, I do want to thank him for turning me on to A .W.

Pink as he was a theologian whom I was previously unfamiliar. So there was something good that came out of that because that was part of his name.

She goes on, says, I don't want to pile on, but I imagine that some of his difficulties with communication could be improved with coaching, disciplined, disciplined thinking and an attitude of humility.

A diagnosis can unfortunately be an idol when we allow it to become an entity identity.

I want you guys to circle back on the topic if you dare.

Well, I'm going to stop there to say, Catherine, we dare and we will.

In fact, what we're going to do is more than just there. We plan to do a summer series on counseling issues.

I plan to bring both of our speakers at Striving Fraternity, Aaron Brewster and Anthony Russo.

Both are ACBC counselors, along with my own pastor and his wife, who those two are also

ACBC counselors. And we're going to do a slew of different topics. In other words, we're going to have four counselors to help

Drew out. It'll be live counseling. We're going to do we're going to deal with some different topics.

And therefore, if folks have some interesting topics, let me know what topics you think we should cover in areas of counseling.

I think her observation of that episode in particular, the gentleman who came on is very good.

It's a very good observation in terms of saying there needs to be the way he was communicating.

Discipline in thinking is usually often lost when people try to come on.

Right. They have so much they want to say, but they're not disciplined in their thinking and ordering their thoughts to present what they're trying to say.

And then oftentimes what happens is they end up contradicting themselves, which is what happened. I think her observation is very good and the humility aspect as well.

Yeah. So I think we you know, she's saying he made our point, which he did throughout.

He was very angry when Aaron kept saying, you can just go back and listen.

Yeah. He didn't like that for some reason. Because he kept calling us liars and he didn't like us saying you could listen to see if we told lies.

But so Catherine goes on and says, I really enjoy the segment on the most recent episode on discipleship.

I would like a whole episode on that, particularly how to how it can be structured within American church.

Although we primarily think of Jesus and his disciples. God gives examples throughout the Bible from Moses, Joshua to Elijah, Elisha.

He devotes large portions of his word to accountability expected within the church family.

Titus two and three immediately come to mind. And what is biblical counseling but focused discipleship?

I wonder if many of these mental health conditions could be could be solved with with discipleship.

We'll cover those. That's a good observation, too. One is the need for discipleship, a biblical discipleship, because in the

American church, we confuse fellowship with discipleship and they're not the same thing.

And people just think if we get together and we hang out, we go bowling or whatever, that that's discipleship.

No, it's not. And then when we consider our society, everyone in our society tries to seclude themselves so much.

Right. And they're always on their phones. They don't want anyone, anyone around or to talk to anyone or anything.

And what does that do to yourself, to your brain, right? Your brain function, instead of putting that down, getting around people and actually learning from one another and helping each other grow.

Yeah. So here's here's the rest of the email next paragraph. And while you're being controversial.

No, we never deal with controversy here. While you're being controversial,

I've heard you all bring up the sin of gluttony. Oh, well, OK, maybe both of us.

I've never heard this talked about in Christian circles. I doubt it will, given the attitude surrounding consumption of more than just food in the

US. Look, I belong to an SBC church. Our covered dish functions are what keep attendance so high as it is.

Can you can you guys do a series on the seven deadly sins for or modern?

Our modern American church is great about confronting some sin, but misuses others.

It seems that gluttony, sloth, laziness, wrath, pride, greed, envy and lust are seven pillars of the culture today.

And social media fans, fans of the fire of our flesh like nothing else.

Thanks for your podcast. Your example and instruction is encouraging. Respectfully, Catherine.

I can't help but laugh because I was thinking today that down here in the

South, right? Everyone thinks that judging is the worst possible sin you could do.

Right. And they take that verse out of context, but they think that's the worst possible thing you can do. But gluttony is perfectly

OK. Yeah. Yeah. So we should announce we are going to do a shorter show tonight.

The plan is to go just for one hour because Drew wants to go watch two old guys fight it out.

Yeah, absolutely. It's not going to be much of a fight. It's going to be one guy talking to a to a mic that's turned off.

I am wondering, you know, they did CNN did this whole thing about showing how the mics work. Like like it was a novel thing.

Like, look, watch. Oh, wow. Did you guys catch that?

I mean, I know how to mute a mic. Oh, and I get a little light when it's me. I mean, like, really, they were they were just displaying it.

And they said when someone talks over the other, do you think maybe what they're going to define as interrupting will be

Trump saying something they don't like? I mean, that's going to be the definition of interrupting.

Oh, sorry. He was interrupting. So, yeah. So political debates are terrible anyway, because they're not really debates.

They're just displays of ad hominem. Well, and they're right, because they don't. I mean, what should happen in my mind is we should actually have like it was in the old days.

We're just let the two of them ask each other questions. This is going to be a three on one debate. I like the fact that CNN is under a little bit of heat because they both the moderators have called

Trump a Nazi and referred to him as being Hitler. So, yeah, they're going to be fair, of course.

Completely non bias. So we do have some questions coming in before we do.

I want to show you some because I like, you know, I like to make you feel bad. So great.

Cool. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I got this is my I've had this for a long time. This is my nice, buttery, soft

Jeffrey Rice NASB Bible. Yeah. Those are good.

Look, it just lays flat. I like this one, but it's NASB. And so I've been waiting for new one.

Look, look at this baby. My my Jeffrey Rice. Nice.

Is that the five solos on the side? It says it has the five solos on the side and SFE for striving for eternity, specially made with my name on it.

Look at that. A nice green color LSB. Now, is it a reference edition?

It is. Well, I it was I don't know if it's a reference edition. What's what's what's the reference edition?

It doesn't have does it does it have references in the columns in the columns? Yeah. Is it center?

Yeah, it's big print, which is what I I was like, I can read this without having trouble.

I love I absolutely love single column inside my reference.

Well, and that's yeah, I actually chose the Bible. So I had that sent to him, bought a

Bible, sent it to him. He ripped off the hardcover, put in this nice. This is a hard leather, this green one.

But, you know, does that make you jealous that I got that? It really does. You know, because I've got

I'm not I'm not an ESV fan anymore, you know, but, you know,

I do have this really nice ESV Bible that according to the guys at Crossway, when

I took it up there. G3, they said they don't make this particular one anymore.

And so I would like to get it rebound and it needs to be rebound. Yeah, but I would love to have have that rebound.

Well, I'm glad that makes you jealous because that's two Jeffrey Rice Bibles. I have. Oh, oh,

I'm sorry. Look what came in the mail today. That's right. A purple

Jeffrey Rice Bible. It says Holy Bible LSB and yes, SFE for striving for attorney.

And look at that. He put my name on the front. Look at this. Another LSB Jeffrey Rice binded

Bible. Are you jealous yet, my friend? I've been jealous. Yeah, I know.

I was jealous with that with the NAS. Yes. So I got the buttery soft. I got the hard leather and this purple one is in between.

So now I get to decide which one do I like to hold. But yeah, what you do is you have one as a preaching

Bible, right? You have one as a study Bible and then you have one as kind of like an everyday carry.

There you go. So like here, Melissa says, Jeffrey does beautiful work. That's right.

So this one right here is my Allen and it's goat skin and everyday carry.

It's just not the same. It's not the same because it's not a Jeffrey Rice. There you go.

But it's still very soft because it is goat skin. Yeah. So post 10 of X Lux rebinding is where you can find

Jeffrey at. Oh, I have to. I have to tell the story.

So I was out of town last week, right? We didn't have a show. You were out of town. I was out of town. So I was out of town for work and we were in Dallas.

We were at the Dallas markets. Well, Thursday morning was our last day there.

And so when I woke up on Thursday, being that we're in Dallas, I was like, you know where I have to go.

I have to go to Herb's Herb's House Coffee Company, which is where Dr.

Lawson does his morning Bible study. Now, I thought because the day before was

John MacArthur's 85th birthday. I thought he would be in California. Right. Well, he wasn't.

We showed up at the coffee house just after about 30 minutes or so after the

Bible study ended and he left. Oh, are you just hating life that you didn't go early?

Oh, I was so mad. And so I was talking to the girl behind the counter and I was telling her, I was like, you know,

I've gotten to meet Dr. Lawson a couple of times. We've had breakfast together and stuff. And she was like, oh, well, he was just here for the

Bible study. And I was like, no. I said, well, give me what he had. There was your chance.

All right. So Rob, Rob is saying, what a bird and Andrew are.

What Bible do I use? Melissa said, once I purchase my

LSB, I plan on having Jeffrey bind it for me. It will be worth it. So, you know, speaking of coffee, you know, hold on.

Oh, bag of integrity there. No, I got my I just opened it today. My bag of squirrely

Joe's compassion. This is a Brazilian coffee. But do some compassion.

Yeah, yeah, I could. That's why I need. I had I had my cup of compassion this morning. And, oh, that smells so good.

Fresh, fresh beans. I mean, he gets wrote some in the and then sends it right out.

Squirrely Joe's coffee is a Christian based company. He's training his children.

You and I before we went live. We're talking about training our children to to to learn, have a plan.

And, you know, as with their teenagers to to have a job plan and, you know, teach, train them to be working.

Well, that's what he's doing. He's got a company that they they work at. And it is good coffee so that we're planning to be to have him at the conference that will be at in Arizona.

At least the coffee will be there. I should throw up a thing for that. Oh, I should take this banner off so people can read this.

But he will he will be at the Christian Responsibility in an Un -Christian World conference.

This is August 8th to the 10th, which is just like a little over 30 days away in Vail, Arizona.

Myself, Kevin Hay, John Sampson, Aaron Brewster, Dan Crafter.

You don't know Dan. Dan is the seven foot apologist. Everyone will be looking up to him at the conference.

Dominic Amaldi, who's one of the podcasters at Christian Podcast Community. He is an ex -con who became a pastor and then

Pastor Jay Miller. So this is going to be a good conference. Great topics.

I know that you're some of you guys are going. I don't know any of those speakers. They are all excellent speakers.

And so it is something that you want to go check out. Actually, I should put that banner back up and you can scan the

QR code. You would be able to also just go to strivingforeturning .org slash

Vail, V -A -I -L. Striving for Eternity slash Vail will get you to get that information about the conference.

And I should mention, while you're out there, you know, at that website, you can also go to strivingforeturning .org

slash coffee to get yourself some Squirrely Joe's coffee. And remember, if you use the promo code

SFE, that stands for striving for eternity, you will get 20 percent off on your first order.

But do remember to go to strivingforeturning .org slash coffee every time you reorder so that they know that you heard about them from us and they continue sponsoring us here.

And we appreciate that. So some questions that we have coming in. Let us see what we got.

We have Rob says ordering my coffee very soon. Thank you for that,

Rob. We appreciate that. Just remember to go to strivingforeturning .org slash coffee. Use the promo code

SFE. Get your discount. So the questions we have,

I'm not going to do them in order because some of these were I want to get to first.

So Melissa says, remember, Andrew, that Matt has autism like Matt Slick. So she's referring to Matt Hagan, who is the gentleman who came in talking about the mental health issues.

And we're we do not mock him here, but there is a big difference between Matt Hagan and Matt Slick.

And the difference is Matt Hagan has made excuses for his sin.

And he said it himself at the end of the show that, you know, basically he's saying that if you have a mental health issue, that that excuses you from being called out on sin.

So he doesn't try to correct his behavior. His behavior was sinful in the way he conducted himself.

And instead of repenting, he feels that he doesn't need to repent because he's got an idol of a mental health issue of autism.

Matt Slick doesn't do that. Matt Slick knows his issue. He acknowledges his issue and tries to learn to change.

So he doesn't let the he doesn't let his mental health, his issues be something that keep him from, you know, trying to do what's what's right and biblical.

At the end of the show, maybe I'll just grab that clip of it where he basically where Matt Hagan had said that the issue is that, you know, people can't sin when they have these issues, something to that effect.

But it was at the at the end that he typed it in. So I know you're friends with him,

Melissa, but it it doesn't excuse the behavior. And and that's the thing.

Let's see, Katie was asking this. Did you guys hear about the Legacy Bible Foundation?

And then she later on said about it. The Legacy Bible Foundation is for distributing free

Bibles like LSB and resources to ministries, prisons, homeless shelters, student ministries and other organizations.

I have not heard about it. Have you? No. OK, well, then we won't have much to say on that one.

I have. I mean, I think it's great if that's what they're doing. Yeah, I always have directed people to if they're looking for Bibles, like if they're doing street ministry or something like that, something that they can get their hands on quick Bibles by the case.

I've directed people there. But if the LSB Foundation is putting out resources like that, where they can where you can get

Bibles like the LSB, go there. But put the hands of the accurate translation in people's hands.

Yeah, I was going to mention Bibles by case is probably the cheapest I have found.

I mean, we would buy I don't even know how many Bibles. I mean, especially back in the day when

I had a very active team in New York and New Jersey, I was I was buying about.

Oh, I want to say between 20 to 40000 tracks a year and probably.

I'm thinking we used to go through. About. A dozen cases easy a year.

So I want to say isn't a case like how many isn't like 100 or something.

No, not 100. Something. No, it's it's. Yeah, it might be closer to,

I think, I think, 25 or 30, I thought. But, yeah. All right.

So another question that came in. This will be a fun one. Melissa is asking question. Is Christian nationalism historically rooted in racism?

Well, so what do you mean by Christian nationalism? Yeah. So let's be really clear.

Christian nationalism is a term that was created by the left like about a year ago.

Yeah. OK, maybe maybe a little bit longer. Christian nationalism is a term that the left has created so that they could blame that they could go into this election.

You're blaming Christians for everything wrong with America. Yeah. And I want that to sink in for folks, people who want to vote third party because they're going to vote their conscience.

Just think about this. You have a party that is creating a term so that they can treat

Christians the same exact way that Nazi Germany treated

Jewish people, blaming them for all the ills of the society, saying that the

Jewish people want to take over the country and run it. They had all the control and the money and the power.

So you had the case where you now have a party that is arguing to blame

Christians for everything. So what is on the ballot this this election?

Your Christian liberties, your your right to be a Christian in America is what's on the ballot.

You know, they they also attribute the title of Christian nationalism to people who we wouldn't consider to be

Christians. Right. Even just people who are pro America in general, they would say, oh, you believe in the founding fathers and what they stood for.

You're a Christian nationalist. You know, they just throw it out. Yeah.

And what it is at its root, OK, is the fact that what the left wants to do with it is to blame

Christians so that they can they can have a target to blame for all of the ills.

And this is not I mean, historically, this has happened multiple times. And so people got to recognize what that term is.

I strongly encourage people not to use that term.

I know that so many feel or we can we can, you know, use that term and push, you know, the post mill view.

OK, it's not all just post mill people, but but I mean, there's there's two big camps that are pushing

Christian nationalism right now. That is the post mills and the new apostolic reformation for different reasons.

Yeah. But the point being is that feeds into when the left gets to have a

Doug Wilson go on the news and say, yes, we want Christian nationalism. We want Christian laws to be the law of the land.

That would be great. But we what the people need to be Christian first, the way the media tries to say to see they want to force their values on us and force all of us to be

Christian. Well, no one believes you can be forced to be a Christian. Constantine tried that.

It was a failure, right, because you can't just declare people Christian. They have to be converted.

And so this is a big thing, Melissa, that I encourage people not to use the term because it feeds into the left.

Now, I get that people want to try to take the redeem that term, but.

You know, by redeeming it, your feet, your we're going we're feeding right into what the left wants so that they could blame us for things.

And, you know, there is a term that is historically rooted in racism, at least in America.

And we would call it the Democratic Party because it's the Democratic Party that kept that didn't want to abolish slavery.

It was the Democratic Party that brought about the Jim Crow South and segregation.

Right. It was it's the Democratic Party that's fighting to actually keep minorities as in a form of slavery, beholding to the welfare system and things like that.

Keeping them in poverty, keeping them uneducated, keeping them in broken families, they're actively working toward all of that.

And and so Katie is saying here it is is scary to see the hate towards people who are

Jewish. And, yes, they're aiming it at Christians after. Actually, I think that they were targeting

Christians first. The the hatred toward Jewish people is recent.

That's only since October 7th. So only a few months. So Melissa went on to say,

I, I brought I bought Christian nationalism. I brought I guess brought up I brought

Christian nationalism because Michael O. Emerson wrote a book about it and said it was rooted in racism.

I was just curious about it. So, yeah, I mean, the thing is, is that remember that I don't know who

Michael Emerson is, but the the left who's coming up with this are the same people who say that Christianity is based on white supremacy.

Remember that this is their whole thing for every everything is blamed on everything's racism. Yeah. Christianity was invented by the white man, which is weird because started in Israel.

Yeah. Yeah. And went to Africa and places where people were not white before it ever came to America.

Yeah. You know, I should mention speaking about about that and some of the things, you know, with cultural things.

Drew, do you know who Megan Basham is? I've seen her on Twitter. Yeah. Yeah.

So she works over at the Daily Wire and she has a very interesting book coming out.

It's called Shepherds for Sale. I got to look up the title. How evangelical leaders traded the truth for a leftist agenda.

I will be interviewing her on that book. I have a pre released copy of it.

I will be interviewing her in July. That should be out. I'm thinking that I will have that episode out sometime either end of July or early

August. I got to figure out when that book is going to be released and I'll probably try to time it for the release, maybe.

If you have a pre -release copy, I'm wondering if she's meaning the bringing in of things like CRT into the church.

Like the Southern Baptist Convention, maybe? Right. As just an analytical tool, right?

And was there money that funded that? Probably, yeah.

She's well researched when she does stuff and she's with the

Daily Wire. So it's going to be very interesting when that book hits. I'm excited to discuss it with her, especially because I think it's just broader than just bringing the leftist agenda into the church.

Because I think that there is a real problem within American Christianity, at least.

But I think it's overall, is that there is a push for platform building versus ministry.

Oh, yeah. That's a no brainer. And you see that because people are more concerned with recording their stuff, putting it out so that it gets views and likes rather than actually teaching truth.

Because they're looking for, and you can see it in their videos, they're looking for that tweetable phrase that can just go viral.

Yeah. I remember, this is going back many years when we used to do our Jersey Fire Conference.

We go to the Jersey, we do a conference to get a bunch of Christians together, get 150, 200 Christians come out for the conference.

And we take them all on the street to evangelize. And, you know, the interesting thing with that was we had a guy,

I don't know if you know who Mike Stockwell is, but he's a well -known, good open air preacher, open air evangelist.

He's been on here before, hasn't he? He has been on here before. And so what ended up happening was

I'd get guys that are experienced to train people up. So he's got this guy that wants to get up and do open air.

And he's asking if Mike can hold his video camera for him. And, you know,

Mike's figuring people want to, because it was his first time. And there's people who want it for evaluation purposes, which

I totally get. But the guy starts and then he turns to Mike and goes, oh, stop it.

Let's start that again. I got to get my spiel right. And Mike just put the camera down.

He stopped it. He walks over to the guy and goes, get off the box. The guy's like, what?

He goes, the gospel is not a spiel. You're not here to record. Here's your camera. Bye.

And sent him home. Right. This is the thing is that you have, I mean, look, there's people even in our camps, if you want to call camps.

I hate this tribalism, but people we would agree with that. They throw integrity out the window for the sake of building platform.

They'll do things that they'll speak as if they do biblical things biblically. But then they'll throw that out the window.

If this might hurt our, you know, our platform. You know, they talk about building platforms and who they're going to.

They're going to platform people and things. And it's like this is ministry. And if you're doing platform building, you're no different than the

Southern Baptists, which have pulled in the leftist agenda. So I'll be really curious to see as we discuss that.

Kathy is saying, yes, I was just going to comment about that book. Thank you for interviewing her.

She covers a lot. Well -researched. It covers it covers takedown of the entire denominations from years ago.

And so it will be very good interview. I'm sure because, well,

I've been reading the book. All right. So Zach is a side question.

He said side question. Is there an issue with Spotify podcast? Haven't been able to load it, but I can load other podcast channels

I listen to. So Zach, email us more information about this, especially if you listen to my rap report or others.

Let me know if there's a reason I'm asking. So email me info at striving for eternity dot com info.

It's striving for attorney dot com is where you can email. The reason I want to know this is because we have switched our host, the hosting that we're with.

And so it should have Spotify should have switched over. And if it has not,

I need to know that. So any Spotify Spotify listeners, you know, let me know on that.

So Kathy said that Tom Askell interviewed Megan Basham.

So another question that we have here from D. Doreen says question is open theism heresy.

Simple answer. Yes. Now let's explain what it is and why.

All right. So open theism is the idea that God.

So let me back up and say it this way. The the real the question with open theism is.

It they're trying to address not so much

God's sovereignty as much as human responsibility. It's always starts with an overemphasis of human responsibility.

I'm going to I'm going to just into a side note, though, because you'll like this, Drew. So I'm at the I'm at the

Utah Christian Research Center. So I'm talking about the deity of Christ, the

Trinity. Can we trust the Bible, the uniqueness of Christianity, Roman Catholicism, social justice?

Are any of those sounding like controversial topics? Not at all. Not at all.

Or like all of them. Let's just say not for us. They're they're not controversial, but for some.

Actually, speaking of controversial, AM Brewster is here. There's no one more controversial.

There you go. So so I'm at the Utah Christian Christian Research Center.

Seven really controversial topics. And which was the topic that got the most heated

Q &A evangelism? The one I least expected to be controversial.

We had a couple and it was a couple, husband, wife. And we kind of think that they were they they knew what

I believed. They they knew who Ray Comfort was and they were looking to they had a hyper grace mentality.

They were very upset that I was teaching people to talk to ask people about the

Ten Commandments to recognize their sin. And so the issue is they believe that and we have

Aaron and Drew here. So I'll see what you guys think. And I'm going to get back to the question. But they believe that no one is in hell for the sins they do.

People are only in hell because they refuse to believe because of their unbelief.

That's the only reason anyone's in hell. So my question to that would be, is unbelief a sin?

That was exactly my question. That's why I waited to see what you guys would say. So I asked them, did right.

But before I asked him if unbelief is a sin, they it was interesting because they already said the only people reason people are in hell.

Is for the sin of unbelief. So I already knew the answer. But as we discussed,

I said, did Christ die for all sins? As it says in Colossians 2 14.

Yes, they both said yes. So I said, so for every sin, every sin was paid for its cross.

Yes. So I turned and said, is unbelief a sin? The wife said yes. And the husband, well, it depends.

No one's in hell. Correct. He realized the problem. And that's exactly what I said.

If Christ died for all sins, either unbelief is not a sin. So people are in hell for something they didn't commit for non -sin or Christ died for all sins of all people.

And therefore people are being punished for the fact that of Christ paid for according to them.

Right. So very tricky thing. I was not expecting that to be the controversial one.

So back to open theism. So open theism is this idea that in protecting

God's they're trying to protect the nature of God. And but really, it's a overemphasizing of the free will.

And so by doing that, what they do is to answer. How did how did God the whole issue of election?

If God knew who would be saved, then God can elect them. So what they're what they're looking to do is save God's nature.

I got news for you. God's nature doesn't need saving. Right. Okay. And so they start to say that God doesn't know all things.

Which doesn't save his nature. It destroys. And that's why it's heresy, because it destroys the very nature of God by saying that he's not omniscient.

He doesn't know all things. Yeah. The future is open and God is just having to react to what we do.

Yes. And so Doreen says, how long before latent flowers becomes an open theist?

Not far now. He's he's already been he's already he told me at the conference in February when we were at together.

He said he is he he used to think it's heresy. But after no getting to know more and more, he's starting to understand their position.

He says, I disagree with it, but I start to understand why they they believe it and hold to it.

So it's like, well, it's sad because just watching that trajectory that he's that path he's been on and he's been fighting so hard against Calvinism.

And it was just well, he was just more like a free will Christian. And then he started studying

William Lane Craig and he got into Mullenism. And then from Mullenism, I guess he invented provisionism, you know, and now it's it's shifting into that open theism.

And it's kind of sad. It's it's where it will naturally go if they stay consistent.

Melissa says, Andrew and Drew, thank you for answering my question earlier. Love you, sis. You're welcome.

We appreciate you. Aaron wasn't here to answer the question, so good on us.

We'll just we'll just say Aaron. Aaron's question would be right there with our with our answer. You guys, you guys said my piece.

Yeah, yeah. We had his proxy. So Deidre says, it's amazing to see how people put man man supposed autonomy above God's supreme autonomy.

Nailed it, sister. That's the issue. So we got another question from Amy and she says question.

And I'm going to have Drew look this up so he could read this for us. But second, Peter found it.

But is it in the NASB 95 can be it's in the LSB.

I'm OK. I mean, we have to go with the 1995. Yeah, I got it. I got it.

She said question. The Lord is is not slow about his promises as some count slowness.

But patient towards you, not wishing for any to come of any to perish, for all to come to repentance.

So her question here is, who is the all? So I'll put that back up.

I don't think you're going to get consensus on this on this response here. Amy, I'm just saying,

I don't know. Well, let's see if we can get three different responses. We'll let Drew start us off and then we'll let

Aaron go. And then I will give the right answer. Let's let's back up a little bit.

There you go. Context. Yeah, I'm just trying to find the right place to back up to. First one.

No, you can do it. Yeah, but you want me to read all nine. Yeah, I mean,

I can start. You can start at verse three. That probably the best place to start. So beginning in verse three, this is

Peter. He says, Wait, no, the world.

I think I said word. It's world. At the time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

But by his word, the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the

Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

And so just backing up that far, we see that there's a particular context of a coming judgment.

And there some are saying, well, where is this promise? Where's this promise of the coming?

Why hasn't it happened yet? They're trying to rush it in, and Paul is saying the

Lord is not slow, as some would count slowness, but he's actually displaying his patience so that those who are headed towards the judgment can come to repentance.

He's giving a chance to come to repentance and faith. Okay, Aaron.

So, you know, the prior context as well as the post context are all referring to this coming day of the

Lord. And Aaron, I think you're using the wrong mic, by the way. Sounds very echoey like it's a laptop.

Is that better? Oh, there we go. All right. Sorry, I was too far away. The context before and after the verse is referring to this coming, this future day of the

Lord. And the moment you get into that, you're going to have the amillennialists and the premillennialists and the postmillennialists all disagreeing on the timeframe.

But not with the promillennialists. The promillennialists are all for millennium if there is one. There you go.

So the question ends up becoming a little bit more convoluted because now we're talking about, well, when is this?

Has it already happened? Is it going to happen in the future? When's it going to happen? So on and so forth. However, I think

I want to say I take the more traditional approach, though I could be wrong on that.

Everyone thinks their version is the most traditional. So you're going to take the postmillennial? Definitely, definitely not.

You said the traditional approach. I had to throw that in there before Andrew got in there.

Only in the early 1900s. And then there was World War I. Yeah. I interpret this as a typical,

I would say, premillennialist. And I would also say, and this is where I end up getting in trouble and I end up making everybody mad at me.

The moment I say this, both the Armenians as well as the hardcore

Calvinists, everyone just hates me. It's like when I was, I used to work in a school in Chicagoland area and we had a sports day.

I bought a White Sox jersey. Not yet. Yeah. And I bought a Cubs jersey and I cut them both up the middle and I sewed the shirts together.

Everybody in Illinois hated me that day. You got beat up by both. Totally, totally. So, you know, in this situation,

I do believe, I struggle with limited atonement as it is commonly argued.

And I'm not interested in getting into a debate about limited atonement at this point. But I do believe when

I read John 3, 16, I believe when we read these passages that God is not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

Now, just because he's not willing for that, because I believe that we see his perfect will, we see his permissive will, whatever terms you want to tack on there is what he is willing to have happen and what he allows to have happen are often two different things.

It was not his perfect will for David to commit sin with Bathsheba, but was not outside of his sovereign will that he did commit adultery with Bathsheba.

And so God is willing for any and all to come to repentance. That doesn't mean that all will. And I'm definitely not going to argue that this any and all needs that little parenthetical phrase thrown in there.

Any of the elect or all of the elect. I can't make that argument from Scripture, not for this passage.

All right. So let's examine this hermeneutically. And I'm going to state the reality is that sometimes we see verses we have knee -jerk reactions to, or we see that they make our systematic theology stronger.

And so we end up reinterpreting something based on our systematic theology rather than taking it from the text.

So what is the overall issue of the text? And Drew kind of said this. It's about patience.

Both of you said it, right? It's the idea that there is a judgment coming. It's going to come.

And it's about the idea of patience. So you can let's put this way.

When I as a parent, I was I was wishing, willing that I wouldn't have to spank my children.

But I did it because they needed it. I wish that every day.

And I'm like, please, I hope I don't have to spank my child today. And then every day it's like, oh,

I got to spank my child now. Yeah. I was wishing that I wouldn't have to do that.

But I had to do that. So right off the bat, just hermeneutically. The fact that it says not wishing for any to perish but all to come to repentance does not mean he's saying that all will come to repentance.

The idea of wishing is something where it's being really clear that, hey, this is not it's just not what people are trying to say.

Like, there's some that will say, well, this means that God wants it. Like God is sitting in heaven just going, oh, oh, please believe.

Please believe. Because then, you know, I really want you to be with me. Then God's not sovereign.

That goes back to the open theism. Rob says God is just, amen,

AR. So the issue is, I think that when we dig into this and skip the main purpose, the main purpose is patience in a final judgment.

That's the idea. And like Aaron said, the verse is after the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the heavens.

That's the main thing. So we cannot miss the main point to focus on the small point.

You're going to say something. Yeah. So I like that you that you emphasize the patience aspect.

When I've taught on the attributes of God, I've taught on God's patience because I believe it's one of the ones that doesn't get spoken about a lot.

But when I do speak on it, I say I'm quoting Tozer, maybe

I think it was, that said, God's patience is the first instance of his mercy.

And so when we're looking at this idea of patience, you know, one of the the word that's used for wishing here,

Balaam, a means to will wish desire purpose.

Right. And I think I think purpose can fit there. The purpose of his patience is to bring people to repentance.

Yeah. Attend, intend, plan. And so when we think about why

God doesn't bring judgment immediately, like for our sins, because now let's personalize it.

Let's internalize it. Let's personalize it. Why am I not judged immediately for my sin?

Because of God's patience in order to bring me to repentance.

So so here would be the thing. A lot of people are saying the key word is in verse eight, beloved, or the word you.

And so the issue there that they're they're saying in the chat is that this is that's the key.

Now, in in this context, OK, it's saying any. You know, he's not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

So can I jump in here real quick? Yeah. May I continue to jump in?

Sure. I struggle with that, with that focus, because that truth in verse eight is referring, obviously, you know, that he's saying to the beloved recognize how

God functions. Right. Recognize his patience. Recognize the fact that he exists outside of time. OK.

Recognize that he's not slow to fulfill his promises. That is directed at the beloved. What comes next, though, if if if he's not willing for any of the beloved to perish, but for all of the beloved to come to repentance, the verse actually doesn't make sense.

Because the beloved. I've already come to repentance and are already not going to perish so that it doesn't it doesn't actually that verse doesn't make sense theologically and doctrinally.

If that that any and that all is referring to the beloved. Yeah. I mean, because so in this context, he's speaking to them about the patience could be that people want.

I mean, people are looking when when you're coming back, right? When is this going to be over? When are we going to be having all the things promised in the millennial kingdom through that out there for Drew?

But the people that have always been asking, when is the end times?

When is when is the second coming going to be? And so he's speaking, yes, to believers.

But here he's he's saying that the Lord is patient with you. Now, if that's only believers, which it could be.

He's patient with you, but not wishing for any to perish for all to come to repentance can still be all people.

However, I want to challenge those who are saying that the belief that it must be the elect only because of the words beloved in you.

Why? I'd like everyone to turn to a clear passage. Remember, when we interpret the unclear by the clear, and that's going to be

John. First, John two, two. I'll start in verse one. It says, my little children.

So if we stop there, who is it speaking to his little children, believers? I am writing these things to you.

Who's the you believers so that you again, who's the you believers may not sin if anyone sins.

Now, I think the anyone it could be just like that other the passage we just looked at where anyone could refer to all people and not not break down the break anything down here.

We have an advocate with the father, the Lord Jesus Christ, the righteous now by that finishing part, though.

Who would have the advocate? Well, that wouldn't be unbelievers now because Christ is not being an advocate for unbelievers.

So now we know that the anyone who sins must be believers. Verse two, and he finds himself.

Sorry, and he himself is the propitiation of our sins, not for hours only, but for those of the whole world.

Now, people focus on the word whole world and say, is that mean everybody or it does that mean only the elect?

Well, the issue is not the word world and it's not the word whole. The issue is the who is the not us.

This passage says that Christ was a propitiation for our sins and not ours only.

Well, who is the hours that we clearly see in verse one believers.

So that is clearly teaching that Christ was a propitiation for believers and unbelievers.

I know Drew disagrees with me on this, but this was the historic Calvinist position before John Owen.

But I disagree with who on what? Well, with I think you would disagree with my view on first John to to.

No, I think we've actually done a show about this and we read with me on it.

I think we did agree that this is that it's talking about the elect.

No, but that's not my point is first John to to is speaking. The elect would be the our sins.

OK, not ours would be the non elect. So this this passage is saying that Christ died as a propitiation for both elect and unelected believers and unbelievers.

You're talking about the. That it's his his sacrifice is enough for believers and nonbelievers, but not necessarily the efficaciousness of it.

See, and this is where we get into the issue, a big issue. So first off, let me just say that this for people that just had the knee jerk reaction of what

I said. There is a classical Calvinism that you see taught before the time of John Owen.

John Owen is the one that really popularized the fact that, you know, there were, you know, that a logical position that Christ died only for the elect.

And that that was not taught universally. Many of the Puritans is the language Drew is using is say, say, believe that Christ's death was sufficient for all efficient or effective for few.

Now, propitiation means propitiation, atonement, a means of appeasing, satisfying the means of forgiveness.

And so this was actually the sin offering. This is where it presents the problem.

So now this passage is clear that in this passage, I think it clearly is.

Now, you're going to have people that will say, well, this is the the us or the Jewish people and the not us or Gentiles.

And so it's only the elect Jews and Gentiles. There's nowhere in First John that Jewish Gentile distinction is made anywhere in the book.

And in fact, it's one of the last books written of the of the Bible. And by that time, there was no

Jewish Gentile issue. By then, it was there were just Christians. And the idea of the

Jewishness was out of sync. So that's the that's the typical Calvinistic, modern

Calvinistic response to this passage. But I'm a man of the text. So I have to do what the text says.

And if it doesn't fit with my theology, I have to change that. And here

I see Amy is saying, follow up. I just saw this now. He himself atoning sacrifice for our sins and not only for ours only, but for the whole world.

And so I'm bringing that up. And she I didn't see it. She had posted that. So the idea here is that I would say that I'm perfectly

OK with saying that Jesus Christ's death on the cross was a propitiation for every single human being, believers and unbelievers.

But it was not efficacious for everybody. It's my bad example.

It's just I don't can't come up with a better example because I don't know the mind of God. But the issue

I can say is that if I go into a restaurant and I offer to buy everybody's dinner and I pay for everybody's dinner,

I know what the bills are for everybody. I pay their dinner. There's might be someone that says,

I'm not letting you pay for me. I'm paying my own way. And they pay a second time. And I've actually had that happen. OK, we are evangelizing in a restaurant.

The Christian owner of the restaurant. So I knew we could. He wouldn't have a problem. But we went around to every table.

My friend Mark and I evangelize everyone. Mark had this one conversation. The guy was really getting, you know, frazzled.

Mark paid for his dinner. The guy found out that Mark paid for his dinner. He paid it a second time and made a point of coming over to tell us to ask for our money back.

And we said, no, we Mark goes, I already paid it. He said, well, I paid it. I'm not going to have anyone pay.

My own, you know, pay for me. And I turned to him. I said, you know, the reason you're going to be in hell for eternity is that very reason.

Because someone paid your fine, but you won't allow anyone else to pay it. You're going to pay it on your own.

So even though it was paid, he paid it on his own. He didn't need to.

You know, it was paid, but he didn't receive that. And so he paid it.

It's a bad illustration, but the best that I have to explain how

Christ's death could be a propitiation for unbelievers.

And yet, logically, we know that. Well, I mean, see, the struggle is part of the struggle is, is

God is speaking to us, right? God knows all things we don't.

So he's talking to us as with the idea of when we go evangelize, we don't know who's saved and unsaved.

OK, we just go out and share the gospel. I think that God in some ways may be speaking to us in that way, knowing all along that he knows who's going to who's saved and unsaved.

So it's it's different in the mind of God than the way he would speak to us the same way. It's different the way I would talk to my children and the way that Drew would talk to his children just based off of age.

My children are having their own children. You know, Drew's children are, well, you know, still running around in diapers.

Yeah, you know, I think you're right. We did disagree with you on this after hearing you.

It was at the end of a show, just like it would. It's now we extended it longer. But but because I think and the reason, you know, we would that I know myself and Chris, who are on here talking about that, would disagree with you is because it

I think it opens up an issue with the propitiation. Right.

And yes. For whom did Christ die? Because Christ himself in John 10 says that he lays down his life for the sheep.

And then if he's dying for the sheep, that means only the sheep receive that propitiation.

So so and this is the thing is, is it that right? Because here's the thing.

I'm not I don't want to bring my systematic theology into this. I want my systematic theology to be informed from this.

And so there is a possibility here. And I leave this as the possibility as well, that Jesus is speaking to men in language men would understand to say, we don't as people, we don't know everything.

And so clearly, Christ knew exactly who is going to who is going to be the elect.

Right. We all agree with that. Yeah. But does he speak to us as if it is open discussion?

Right. There's times where he he could speak to us that way because we. Can you explain that a little more elaborate?

Does he say that it's open discussion? Yeah. So let me let me go to Ephesians.

Let's see. Ephesians 1, 4. Right. A famous passage with election. Just as he chose some before the foundation of the world, that we that we would be holy and blameless before him in love.

What a lot of people focus on is that he chose us before the foundation of the world.

Now, there's a problem with that. Did God actually choose us before the foundation of the world?

Well, there was no before with God. Right. So what is he doing there?

He's speaking in a language for human beings to understand. I refer to as speaking baby talk to us.

We cannot comprehend an eternal being who knows everything. Right.

Because we're we're temporal beings bound by time that learn things. And so the idea is that there are times that God will speak to humans in a way for human understanding.

But it is not the way he would understand things. We know there was no before the foundation of the world.

So what is he saying in Ephesians 1, 4? He's it's the clearest way that anyone could say it is you had nothing to do with your salvation.

Right. I mean, that's that's the main point of it. He's trying to say you did nothing to earn your salvation.

It was done. It was it was from eternity past. But there was no eternity past for God.

There was only an eternity past for us. Yeah, I think that's good.

Go ahead, Aaron. Go ahead. Well, I actually before we get too far away from it, I wanted to go back to the illustration you gave that you didn't like.

And I want to suggest a tweak. I mean, this honestly, I don't I'm not suggesting that my version is better.

This is how I understand it. I'm curious to get your feedback. You may have a better illustration for me. Because mine doesn't work.

So works. So you go. And in this example, you're you were you were the

Christ figure in this illustration. But you go and you work a job. And by working that job, you make enough money to walk into the most expensive restaurant in the world.

And to pay for everybody who will ever eat in that restaurant.

Well, so far, I am really liking your illustration. Yeah, I hope this one's a prophetic here. Yeah. Name it and claim it, baby.

I want that to be a prophecy. Yeah, exactly. So so you're there and you offer to everyone in the restaurant, everyone coming to the restaurant that you will pay for their meal.

And you you can. You possess the ability. You have all the finances necessary.

But you're not just going to pay for somebody's meal unless they ask you to. If they ask you to, you're more than happy to pay for it.

If they don't ask you to, you're not going to pay for it. I said in the in here when

Danine asked a question, I said that the atonement is 100 percent actual. Jesus Christ. Can and has the ability and the power and his redemption was was able to cover the sins of all mankind, but it's not effectual to that degree.

It's not just we're not universalists and say that just because Christ died. And this is where I honestly I think this is where a big a big thing for the

Calvinist, the hardcore Calvinist comes up because they don't want to be universalists. Right. Because if Jesus Christ atonement was perfect and all encompassing, if he actually died for the sins of the entire world, then then that's a problem if everyone doesn't get born again.

So therefore they have to limit it down to he only died for the elect. But in the illustration

I just gave, maybe I'm hoping maybe that it makes sense for us to see that though he was completely capable of paying the debt for all people by virtue of of his crosswork, it's not all people.

The only thing I don't like about the illustration is it puts the ultimate decision making on the person in the restaurant asking to have his bill paid.

I see that. But from a human perspective, it doesn't work to say that you, Andrew, are are omniscient.

Of course not. And I see I see your point, because, you know, from the we recognize the fact that Jesus chooses, you know, and if you wanted to honestly, if you wanted to do it that way, you could literally say you walk into the room and you don't pay everybody's bill.

You could pay for everybody's bill, but you don't. And everyone's bill that you do pay for. They wanted you to.

Well, they're happy that you did it. See, and that's the thing when we speak about God. This is why

I don't think any good illustrations work with this is like with the Trinity, because this is something about the nature of God.

We can't comprehend how Christ could be a propitiation for believers and unbelievers.

And yet the unbelievers are in hell, rightly so, because they their debt hasn't been paid.

Well, I think if I can expand or tweak Aaron's illustration a little bit, instead of instead of just going in and paying everyone's bill or going in and then selecting whose bill you're going to pay, it kind of takes me to John six, where there is a group of people that the father has given to the son.

So there is a group of people whose bill you are already going to pay and you will pay them.

Their bill will not go unpaid and they will not go without food and you will lose none of their bills.

I think that kind of I think if we view it in terms of like John six in that illustration, it probably at least to me, it makes a little more sense.

I agree with that. I guess the only the only point that I think is unique and still works with the example you just gave is that instead of Jesus, quote unquote, you know, the

Messiah figure in this illustration going to work and only making enough money to pay the bills of the people

God commanded him to pay. I make the argument that when the Bible says he died for the sins of all mankind, right, that he actually did.

Like there is a Jesus Christ is infinite. His blood can cover an infinite number of sins.

That doesn't mean that it will, but it can. I have no problem saying that he died for the sins of the whole world.

And as Andrew beautifully put it, that doesn't change the fact that people are going to are going to die and go to hell. So so he so he possesses enough money to pay for everybody, even though he's not going to.

Yeah, it's sufficient. Yeah, he has the sufficient funds to do so. But it but that sufficient funds is only effective for those whom the father has given to him.

Correct. He's going to pay. So, I mean, this is a this. I know that nowadays people think the only

Calvinist view is John Owens view from his book, Death of Death. And that is the most popular view.

And people think it's heretical to disagree with that. But that was not what all Calvinists believe prior to that. And so, you know,

I take more of the historical what's called classic Calvinist view. And the reason

I do is because my ultimate authority is scripture, not Calvinism. You know,

I don't know anyone who would just bash, you know,

John Owen like that. We've got so many John Owen fans. Well, yeah, you can't see.

I got I got mine over on the other side. I see you pointing to your commentaries. I got the same set of commentaries.

I got his complete works in Lagos. So, I mean, I love John Owens.

He's not an easy read, but he's really not. No, he's really not. OK, so and we did say we were going to end early for the debate.

And it's Melissa was like, I thought you guys were running early for the debate. But, you know,

I feel started dropping off. Now you bring up limited time and more people come in. So D is saying,

I understand that the atonement is great enough to cover every person.

But saying it's effective is contingent on the decision of men puts them in charge of their own salvation.

I agree with that. I think we're all saying it's sufficient for all. It is effective.

That's where you use or or, you know, applied to few. I think we all agree with that.

See, wouldn't God in his omniscience know how much he needs to pay, though?

That's my point, Rob. In his in his omniscience, he knows that.

But when he's speaking to us, he may speak to us in language we would understand, which opens it up where it sounds like it could be for both.

And so we have to be honest with what the scripture is actually saying. But we also have to back up and say in the mind of God, is he saying this because we're human?

But he knows different. And and the answer is, yeah, sometimes that's the case.

So but with that, I think we'll stop here. I know that Drew was anxious to watch two old men fight it out.

And so and I'm going to I'll go back and rewatch the first half hour of the debate here, their openings.

But I just want to say next week, because we are not like Tyson Foods. And if you don't get that reference on Juneteenth, Tyson Foods came out with a thing that they they gave to their employees that had

July 4th crossed out. And then they had Juneteenth Pride Month and all this stuff.

Hence, I am not buying anything from Tyson Foods ever again. I told my wife, you were not allowed to have

Tyson Foods anything in this home anymore until they repent. So when you see the video of the

CEO of United Airlines, I posted that on Twitter. Hence, I will not be flying

United when the CEO is doing drag queen dancing. Yeah, that was you that I did.

Yeah. So, yeah, I won't be flying United, but he's the CEO. It doesn't have anything to do with that tells you what he like a guy that's doing that.

I mean, CEOs have a company to run. They got to think about their the way they're there. But to do that says, oh, this is what

I want everyone to think of me. Yeah. So we will be honoring July 4th, Independence Day.

We will not have a show next Thursday because of July 4th.

Drew, you celebrate July 4th, right? Absolutely, because I bleed red, white and blue.

Do they do they celebrate July 4th over in England or are they still upset with us? You know,

I think they're still upset with us over the things in effigy. Yeah, they burn things in effigy because of the

Presbyterian revolt. So they don't have a July 4th there in England? I think they want to forget that July 4th happened.

Yeah, it's called Losers Day. What day do they have after July 3rd?

They skipped July 5th. It's like those buildings that don't have a 13th floor. An anomaly.

Yeah. Okay. And here we have... They try to, as best they can, have tea and toast to the king.

Here we have Brother Asher comes in with the question of Zachariah. What's it talking about?

I believe if this is the same Brother Asher that was in before, the black Hebrew -Israelite, that believes that whites will be his slaves and everything that he usually brings up has to do with that.

Well, he could come into the show, not next week, but the week after and we could discuss it. I should say for programming note, you can mark your calendars for no show

July 4th. We'll have a show on July 11th, 7 -11.

I will not be here for a show on the 18th.

But on the 25th, we have planned. Someone wanted to know that basically wanted me to respond to an atheist

YouTube channel, Godless Grandma, who is responding to latent flowers on the issue of God's sovereignty, human responsibility.

And so I said, sure, we'll invite her on and have a discussion. It should be fun. So that will be on July 25th.

So you can mark your calendars there. So no show on July 4th. I will be here with hopefully with Drew on July 11th.

Drew will have to do a show on the 18th and then we'll be back on the air and we'll do a show on the 18th.

You won't be here. No, I'll be here for my my typical half half show appearance.

Drew, you got to start it if he's going to be here because he gets here. I already got I already know.

So I thought today it was going to be just me. And so I was like, oh, great.

Because when you asked me about a show topic, when you called me, I listened to your voicemail this morning on the way to work.

And I was like, oh, I got to come up with a show topic. I guess it's just me tonight. And then so I came up with one and then you showed up and you were here and I was like,

I guess we'll save it for later. So I already got some. Yep. And I know what it is. So we'll set that up.

So with that, we're going to end a bit early. Well, Aaron, you're welcome to come in.

I don't know what it is like. I don't know what the topic is. I feel like I'm out of the loop. You are out of the loop.

You know, we'll text it to you. So that way you have you'll know about it.

All right. With that, folks, we're going to wrap this up. Just remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the kingdom of God.