Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
I'm live. I'm still alive after all this. That's right. I'm alive in Christ. Amen. So if you guys have some video, videos, have some questions, comments about this topic, Roman Catholicism, or anything else, like how to woo and win women, I'm really good at that.
I'm not good at cooking or sewing. That's woman's work. See, I like saying totally chauvinistic stuff, just, just for the reaction. Well, you know, guys do it too. I remember once, I remember once at our house, we have a big kitchen.
And so we had a party or something. And all the ladies congregated, they happened to be sitting in the kitchen around the kitchen table, all the guys are out, you know, whatever. I walked in, I really did this.
I walked into the kitchen, and I just kind of stood there in a place where they would notice. And the conversation all kind of stopped. And they're all staring at me like I'm going to say something. And I said, Wow, all you women are in the kitchen.
That's interesting. And I tried to keep a straight face. And about three of them went, what? And my wife's going, would you stop it? And then I lost it. I started laughing. I just thought it was funny.
You know, apparently they didn't think it was all that funny. I thought it was pretty good. So where's the link on the homepage of CARM? Did you put it up there? No. Oh, there is Q &A right there in the front.
Yeah, I knew that. Okay, Tulip Doctors of Grace. Has it started yet? Yes. I don't see anything yet. Open your eyes. Doctors of Grace. Just the CARM logo. That's all you see. Go like this. Okay. Be back in a few.
All right. Don't see any questions there. Got anything else? I'm not gonna do that. I don't do a script. There are people who would memorize all this stuff. Why would I want to do a contest of memorizing verses?
You know, it's like, whatever. Do you think Tim Keller is sound teacher? I can't remember. Is he the Roman Catholic? I'm trying to remember Tim Keller. I thought he's a Roman Catholic guy. He's not. There's a good apologist who's actually Roman Catholic.
Too bad. Tim Keller. Okay. I've heard the name. So I don't know. I haven't studied him enough to be able to tell you. So I can't, you know, can't comment. That was easy. I don't know. Those are the easy ones.
I don't know. How about Facebook? I'll go on Facebook. Facebook? CARM Facebook? All right. Because this is slowing down. I think it's summertime. And I think that's what it is. So we're gonna take a couple weeks off.
What? 12 weeks? We're back on July 12th. Yeah, we'll figure something out. We're gonna do. You wanna do Mormonism, huh? I'll tell you what, I'll do what people want me to do. You just email me and whatever you say and stuff like that.
And whoever gets the most votes wins. Fulton Sheen, have no idea. That's really shiny topic. Hey Matt, how do you persecute? How do you persuade the Roman Catholic on Sola Scriptura? You don't, the Holy Spirit does.
But I just keep asking him, show me in Scripture, show me in Scripture, show me in Scripture. Very awesome. I'm glad you like it. All right. So hey folks, look, if you got any questions, give me a call.
Oh, excuse me. That's my radio show. That's my radio, my radio thing. Yeah, here to call myself. I wouldn't mind actually having a, it'd be kind of cool to have a phone speaker set up here and people could call up, they just put them on.
Yeah. Yeah, we can, you know, we got people who prank me, who do stuff. It's like, come on. You know, they don't realize I get so much crap from people. I mean, I'll be on doing something and they'll come in and lie.
Can't hear you, can't hear you. You can't hear me. And when they can, they're just lying, you know, because it causes me to, what? Because I want to, I'm concerned. And then someone said, no, they're lying.
Well, how do I know they're lying? Who I know is the liar or not? So they do this kind of stuff. It's like, you know, grow up. And so I only have a few people now I trust that when they're in there, I'll trust what they say.
You know, and one time a guy was going, yeah, you know, we can't hear you, can't hear you. No matter what you say, we can't hear you. And the guy goes, yeah, we hear you fine. And then one guy said, yeah, this link you gave us, it goes to a porn site.
And the guy goes, no, he's lying. Good. Which is Mormon and which is the Westminster Confession of Faith to help Christians determine what is inspired scripture? Which is Mormon? This is a Roman Catholic asking this.
Which is Mormon and which is the Westminster Confession of Faith to help Christians determine what is inspired scripture? That doesn't make any sense. You see, when Roman Catholics talk like this, or they write like this, what I'm thinking is they're all their paws aren't in the logic box.
And so they're like, they can't Google Translate. Yeah. Yeah, it doesn't, yeah, it doesn't make any difference. Hi, Matt, is depravity, is depravity been eradicated after regeneration? No. Depravity is that we're touched by sin and all that we are, we still are, except now we're born again, and God's living in us.
And now we can successfully war against the flesh. Here's Mark, again, the Roman Catholic, let's see if he's going to write better. It doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
And when we show, oh, oh, I see, he's just comparing that to the same thing. Roman Catholic is trying to say, we have the same testimony as the Mormons do. The Mormon testimony is about the Book of Mormon, not about the Bible.
That was easy. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I mean, I've been dealing with this guy over and over and over. If he knew what he was doing, that's not a testimony, isn't about the Bible and Mormonism, but the Book of Mormon doesn't apply.
Okay. And so Jesus did say, however, in John 10, 27, he said, my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and they will not go after another master, another teacher. So Christians hear the voice of God.
The scriptures are the voice of God. We recognize it. That's why the Roman Catholics, I don't believe are Christians. They're not regenerate. So anyway, what you just did, you just did another one. Yeah, you guys went to the mic so that we can, I was going to hear it.
Rolling on floor, laughing, whatever that means. Same way if you tell the scripture. Read below. What? When you attend church in a Catholic church. I don't do.
That. Well, if you have ever attended church there and they come in and they have the little, they have a chain and at the bottom there's a little container and it smokes. Yeah. What are they doing?
Incense. Uh, you know, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. It's a tradition that they do. I'll research it and see. I've never had that asked before. It's a good question though. Yeah, I know what it is.
They walk and they, I've seen them. I think they're getting rid of mosquitoes. Yeah, I don't know. I'll check it out. Now I was playing with you today with words, but it reminded me, I was working at a gym today and my friend AJ, so we're talking, we're doing lats and we're doing stuff.
And, uh, so he's telling me that he, uh, he's going to go to college. I go, good. What are you going to, what are you going to major? He goes, communication. I went, what? He goes, communication. I said, what?
He goes, communication. Why? I'm laughing. He goes, oh geez. But I did that about a year ago to a guy. And, uh, I said, what's your major? He goes, he said, communication. I said, what? And he goes, communication.
And I said, what? And he literally goes, communication. I can't keep it together. I'm laughing. He goes, you idiot. What'd you say? Communication. What? Communicate. I just love that. Sorry. I, that was my little digression.
Doctrine of grace, not to defend Mark Rome, but he was asking which was out of the book of Mormon and which was a Westminster confession. Oh, B is out of the book of Mormon, or D and C, whatever it is.
Westminster confession of faith is a totally cool confession of faith from Westminster. It's a reformed, I'm in a bad mood. It's a reformed confession. It's on CARM and you can go check it out. I forgot when it was written, but it's very good.
It's a very good confession. It's worth reading. You'd really be surprised what you can learn in these things because we didn't have internet, didn't have movies, didn't have radio, didn't have TV. So they had these confessions that they would write.
They're a summation of biblical theology. You read through them and go, oh, I didn't know that. I didn't know that. That's good. Oh, that's right. Really good stuff. Now, now they, you know, the, the West, the, the statement of faith or the confession of faith now would be, you deserve to be happy.
You deserve to have money. You know, it'd be stuff like that. Yeah. All right. Uh, Mormons say Satan and Jesus are brothers. They have no clue about scripture. That's true. A is from West, yeah, and B is from Mormonism.
What's the difference? What's the difference? Well, the difference is one's from the Westminster confession of faith. The other one's from the book of Mormonism. That's the difference. Yeah. Got a question?
Am I good? I want to ask better questions. Uh, so two questions. First question is, um, like how come Satan seemed kind of non-existent in the old Testament?
In Genesis, he's there. Um, I don't know why he wasn't, he's, he's there in second wrote about Chronicles 24, 21. I think what he wasn't wrote about as much. He was there. Like when Israel was there and stuff.
Um, I don't know. I don't know what the real reason is. I'd like to see someone study on that to see if there's a reason. Um, maybe he's not mentioned as much in the old Testament, but he is like, you can go to Isaiah 14, probably Ezekiel 38, I believe.
Uh, those are also references where he's referenced, but, um, probably because it wasn't until Jesus was on the scene that the real work of Satan became manifested. And then the disciples would write about it because then it was a true battle.
Probably what, what the reason is, I would think.
Is about, uh, when Jesus talks about how a lot of people are going to come from the East, West, North, South to dine with like Abraham and everybody that's, is that going to be like, you know, a real, a real physical dining with resurrected old saints and stuff?
A lot of times prophecies can be symbolic, but a lot of times even the symbolic stuff seems to be literal. It's kind of weird. So I don't have any problem with it being a literal, uh, fellowship dinner.
The issue of eating is, is interesting. Um,.
Also says that he's not going to have, um, you know, he's not going to drink until it's in the.
New kingdom. Yeah. Again, there's the wedding feast. And is there going to be a literal wedding feast? Maybe, maybe not. Uh, those are just things I'm not sure of because the Bible doesn't really tell us.
And so we can just give opinions and, uh, I w I'd kind of lean towards, yeah, it's going to be a real event, something real that it'll happen. That's what I think. I hope it'd be cool. Okay. So you look at this, Mark Rome, there's no difference.
Both want you to just believe in your heart that scripture is inspired. Well, let me ask you, Mark Rome, if it's both Mormons and Christians, uh, just say, just believe what's in your heart. Um, what's inspired.
Is that a problem? Now, if you're saying it's false because the Mormons also teach it, is that what you're saying? Because it doesn't mean it's false. And it couldn't be true with Mormonism if it's what Christians teach.
See, Jesus said that the sheep will hear his voice. So we know that the voice of God, we recognize it. That's what we do. So what's the problem with having the Holy Spirit bear witness of truth in us?
What's the problem with that? What the Roman Catholics want to do is say, you need the authority of the church to tell you. Well, then you have a testimony of the authority of the Roman Catholic church.
Where'd you get your testimony from? It's the same thing. See, we want to trust the scriptures because that's what Jesus did. That's what Paul did. But we know that this issue of believing in your heart is not about the scriptures from Mormonism, but the book of Mormon.
So they're not doing the same thing as we do. All right. What you're doing is misrepresenting the argument. Pretty typical. Um, have I done any studies on Iglesia Ni Cristo? A little bit. And I haven't really studied it, Dottie.
Uh, I just got too many things going. Which scripture do I got to set up? Maybe three debates here pretty soon. And I got to go out to the East Coast and some other stuff. And when I have debates, it just takes up a lot of time.
Have you ever done these? Okay. Which scriptures do you want to believe though, Mark? Oh, okay. Mark, Westminster Confession of Mormonism says essentially the same thing about how to know what is scripture.
Um, let's just say that's true. That Mormonism says to pray about it to see if it's true, but that's not what Christianity says. See, Mormonism says to pray about the book of Mormon to see if it's true, but that's not what the Westminster Confession is saying.
The Westminster Confession says the Holy Spirit bears witness of the truth of God's word in us. Mormonism prays about it to see if their Holy Spirit testimony will come upon them about the book of Mormon.
So it's not the same thing. No Christian is praying about the Bible to see if it's true. So Mark Rome, you are blowing it. Okay. You're only showing your ignorance when you raise this issue. Um, Satan has a larger role in the New Testament because of the eschaton.
Yeah. Well, the eschaton is future. Uh, that's generally that word is generally referred to as what's future to us now, but you mean the first arrival of Christ. That does seem to be the case, Jesse. All right.
Anybody else got any questions, comments? Let's see. Fire them at me. I'm looking on YouTube right now. I don't see anything. Uh, okay. Did you send it to me? It's on my what? Uh, I don't even know how to get to that.
My Google docs because that I have to have a password too. And so you have it. She's going to, you what? That's okay. I trust her. I have to get into, uh, let's see if I can find it. Google docs. I think I could probably do it anyway.
Then she can put all the questions in there. Docs .google .com. Let's see if I got it. No, I'm in there. Or am I? Karm fixes issues. How to post an article. Matt, you're really good looking and handsome.
Nathan? What? I'll get something thrown at me from this direction. Not this Nathan. Oh, that would be you. That's for sure. Um, I don't see, I see, I'm looking at my, uh, Google docs. I don't see the stuff.
What? Recent documents. Well, I could just sit here, but I'll tell you what I'll let, I'll let you, uh, I'll let you do it while I'm sitting there answering questions. Okay. Yes, ma 'am. I've had people discuss whether.
Judas was, um, possessed. What? You've not heard of demonic forces? Yes. No. So he wasn't,.
I don't even like hardly ever discussing anything like that. It's so blasphemous. Um, it depends on the question. I may or may not address it. It's only certain things. I, I won't go. I, I, I, to me is, is, is from Satan.
How do you combat that? I say, uh, you, you are in the risk of committing blasphemy against God himself. You better stop. I don't, I just don't go there. I don't, I just don't do it. You are in trouble.
You even entertain that idea. And, uh, I don't be around you as a judgment upon you. If you entertain that, Satan's obviously working on you. Get out of my face. I mean, there's certain things about the person and work of Christ, you know, his work and who he is.
I only go so far to defend, but people start saying things like that. Get out of my, my, uh, my face. I'm not doing that. That's the way it is. Um, it's rare that I would ever, uh, answer or, or not answer a question, but it's people that ask that.
How do you know, you know, oh, you want me to defend that he wasn't even, are you kidding me? It just makes me revulsed to even think about it.
They, um, by doing that, he, he isn't personally responsible for anything he did because he didn't do it. The devil did it. Yeah, that's stupid. You know, kind of like my life is terrible now because my mother didn't, you know, tell me she loved me or whatever.
The mentality of escape is I'm not, I'm not responsible. Boo hoo. My diapers. I got to cinch up the pamper stripes, uh, things so that I can, uh, I can, you know, feel better about myself. That's all.
It's just ridiculous. Yeah. Uh, no, I, I won't, I don't, I don't entertain that idea. It's just one of those things. I just, I can't, I just, I'm just, it took me about a decade before I could even talk very well about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Took about a decade. I had trouble every single time. I still do, but now I can manage it. There's just some things I just can't do. Oh, man, that is, that is evil. That is evil. That's from Satan. It is.
But they do, they ask that. Oh yeah. I tell them, go away. Okay. Tim Ellis from Facebook asks, Tim Ellis, that guy's a wacko loser. Oh man, he's, he thinks he knows about cars. Boy, does he though? He's a, no, he's a great guy.
He's a great mechanic. I trust him. He lives local here too. He goes, oh yeah, he's awesome. Seriously.
You know, when God makes a new heaven and a new earth, is the earth going to be completely destroyed or is it burned up on the surface and then made new? Don't know. The Bible doesn't tell.
Us, but it says all the, it says the elements will be burned with intense heat. 2 Peter 3, 10, I think, or right around there. And so, what I assume is, this is kind of where I lean, not that I can prove it.
I think the entire universe is going to be remade because I think Adam represented creation in the fall, sin entered the creation, and it's all going to be taken care of, the entire universe, which has nothing for God to do.
That's what I suspect. New heavens and new earth. Yeah, that wouldn't be the heaven that where God dwells, but it would be, you know, the first and second, the clouds, area, the stars, the sun, moon. That's what I would think.
Heavens. That's right.
Okay. Drew Stanville wants to know if you'd be willing to set up an interview with Mike Gendron, an ex-Catholic who has, currently has an excellent ministry.
Interviewing for what? How? His experience in the Catholic Church. Good talk. I can talk to him and see what he's, you know, see what's going on, you know.
Daniel Palmer asks, can a Roman Catholic who trusts in Christ but doesn't understand all of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church still be saved? Yeah. Well, yeah,.
People could be saved in all levels of ignorance and just not knowing. Your trust in Christ is what's important, but a lot of times people just, they don't understand some nuances of the faith and doesn't mean they're not saved.
We're not saved by doctrinal exposition. We're saved by.
The blood of Christ and faith in him. Harold Stevenson asks, is depravity eradicated after.
Regeneration? I already answered that one tonight. Yeah. I forgot to take that one off. No, it's not eradicated. We still have struggles with our sin nature. You can go to Paul exemplified that in Romans 7, uh, 18 through 25.
He's still struggling with the things he doesn't want to do. He does. It's our total depravity. It's just touching of sin and all of what we are, except that we are now regenerate. So we are able and enabled to be able to do good, but the struggle is still there.
If total depravity was, was eradicated, because total depravity means sin touching all of what we are. If it was eradicated, there would be no more sin touching what we are. Then why would I.
Sin? Cody Robbins asks, when you get the opportunity to preach, how do you personally,.
How do you decide what to preach on? Um, depends. Uh, if a pastor, well, okay. If a pastor wants me to preach on something, I'll often say, is there something you'd like me to preach on? Because sometimes they're doing a series and they want me to fill in a gap.
Or sometimes they'll say, you know what? I'd really like it if you addressed Mormonism or Islam in a sermon, because that's been a topic lately. I said, yeah, I'll do that. That's fine. If they say whatever you want to preach on, then what I do is I just go and I start praying, Lord, what do you want me to preach on?
And just put it upon my heart. And I just, and a lot of times I won't know what I'm supposed to preach on until the day before. And then I'll just work on something and, and God blesses, you know, and sometimes he gives it to me early or I would consider him giving it to me early in his providence and whatever.
And sometimes later, actually, because he goes to the same church I go to. I actually hope that Mike gets sick sometimes I have to preach. I told him that, my pastor Mike, you know, where I have to get up right away and preach.
I'd like that. I had to do that once in a church where the pastor's wife, water broke right there. And he goes, Matt, you're on in 15 minutes, preach. And I went, okay. So for 15 minutes, I'm working on a sermon.
I had got up there preached. So. Okay. I haven't read this question.
The father is the one who chooses who will be saved. And Jesus is the one who redeems the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is redeemed. I know Jesus doesn't give up in anyone on anyone and still loves them through the end of the ages.
But how do you know if you are going to receive.
The salvation of God? In other words, how do you know if you're elect? That's what is a basic question. It's one of the things the anti-Calvinists try to get me to realize that I can't know if I'm elect.
You could lose your salvation. You could be deceived, Matt. And, you know, 1 John 5, 13 says, these things are written so you may know you have eternal life. Well, I know I have eternal life. And the reason I know I have eternal life is because I don't put my faith in anything I do.
I put it in everything Christ does. He's God in flesh. Well, what else am I to do? It's not a big deal. And they'll say, well, you could be deceived. Uh, well, if I'm deceived about trusting God in flesh, putting my faith and my hope in him and the resurrection, uh, and all my hope and everything, if that's a deception, then, oh, geez, I guess I got no hope.
Is that a deception? I'll ask them. Well, you know, and there's, there's security in knowing, uh, that I'm saved. And those who don't know it's because their salvation depends in part on their ability.
They're the ones who really should be concerned. Andrew asks, have you done any studies on radiometric dating? No, I want to, I can't say I haven't done any study. I have, but not very much, a little bit of here, a little bit there enough to know this is 25 years ago or so enough to know that radiometric dating has weaknesses and that certain types only go back, uh, 3000 years, 6 ,000 years.
So I think 14 are different, different type of isotopes. There are different things that they're using. So there's some issues there, but I in no way, uh, have been educated enough to be able to tell you what those issues are, really are and stuff, but I'd have to start studying it all over again, which is another project.
Same guy, Andrew also.
Wants to know what is the difference between say the Hindu speaking in tongues and the real tongues.
Of the scripture? Well, one's real and one's not because he, well, he said it. What's the difference between Hindu speaking in tongues and real tongues? Well, he sees the world real for one implying the other one isn't.
So one's real, one's not. That's the answer to the question,.
Which you already gave. How would you respond to someone who says that Christianity is the white man religion and the white man's forced black slaves to worship Jesus and took them away from.
Their gods that they worshiped before Christianity was around? I'd say that's lame. White man's religion. Those are, that's racism right there. That's a big racist thing. It's a white man's religion. Jesus wasn't white.
He was a Mediterranean looking. He wasn't like me, white. He's more like, uh, not as Neanderthal looking as Jamie, but he was, you know, on that side of over there. Yeah, that's pretty, pretty Neanderthal.
I would say maybe.
But I don't know about Neanderthal. And Tad Delaney from Canada wants to know, is the bride of Christ subject to God's wrath to come or will it be kept from it?
Which wrath? To come. Which wrath to come? The wrath of God upon the unbelievers, the wrath of God on judgment, the wrath that some say is a tribulation. Now the Christians are going to go through the tribulation, but Christians are not going to face the final judgment of God.
And then there could be a wrath upon a person for his disobedience to God and he could still be saved. As 1 Corinthians 5, 1 through 5 talks about. He'll bring such a one over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh so he'll be saved on the day of judgment.
What? I can't hear you. What? YouTube's got questions? Okay, let's see. Fire questions at me. I'm looking at that. What is a mortal sin? A mortal sin according to Roman Catholicism is a sin that when you commit all of your infused graces instantaneously removed.
And if you were to die in that state, then you would go to hell. Doctrine of grace, I might be doomed from the womb and only think you're saved. Jesse, no. If you trust in Christ, you're not. You're not doomed.
If you trust in Jesus. Don't any of you guys who criticize this doctrine of God's election, don't you ever believe the gospel? Don't you ever believe in the power of the Word of God? It's as though you guys don't believe that the words of Christ are powerful and that the words of Scripture are powerful.
Oh, you can believe in Jesus, but not really believe in Jesus? What? Jesus is the one who's going to deceive us? Jesus is the one who's not going to give us eternal life when we're appealing to him? What are you guys?
I mean, come on. Why don't you believe what Jesus said and stop the stupidity of trying to deny the truth of God's Word, trying to deny his election, his predestination, which the Scriptures clearly teach.
You know, you're part of the apostasy, denying the sovereignty of God, working against the very doctrines that God has laid out in Scripture. Because what you're doing is elevating your own ability and complaining against God's right to do with his creation as he desires.
You should repent. Read Romans 9, 9 through 23, and repent. And stop being arrogant, stop being prideful, stop being stupid, stop being stubborn, and stop being foolish. And realize that God is a sovereign, not you and your stupid free will and your depravity and everything else.
And think that you are the ones who are smart enough to ask doctrinal questions that are difficult for Calvinists. It's because you don't understand Scripture. It's because you don't understand what the Word of God really says in a lot of areas.
So you go into these areas of darkness and you think you're abiding in the light, and you're not. You know, God chose us from the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1, 4. He chose us for salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2, 13.
That's what he says. And he also says, Jesus says, if you know how to give good gifts to your father, to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father in heaven give to you, liberally, those who would ask for the Holy Spirit?
If you as a Christian say to a believer in God, please save me, Lord Jesus, and you're appealing to Christ, you're saved. And then you come along, how do you know you really believed? Oh, geez. Who can answer the motives and the depths of the heart of each individual and say, this is how you know?
It's up to the person and the relationship with God. It's not your business to be asking those kinds of questions. You are in sin in your rebellion against God and his sovereignty. You should stop. I get tired of this kind of idiocy given from the anti-Calvinists, those who don't know the words and the truth of God's word.
And they think that they keep their salvation by their own efforts, their own works, and they mock and criticize the doctrines of grace. You ought to repent. And Mark Roman, no, you don't believe scripture.
Do you believe Leviticus 17, 14, Mr. Roman Catholic, where it says, do not drink the blood of any flesh, and you have Jesus having the disciples drink his own blood, which violates Leviticus 17, 14. Do you believe that?
And is baptism a must for salvation? No, it's not. If baptism was necessary for salvation, then all who would die in the womb are damned. And all who die in their deathbeds with the tubes in their noses and in their mouths.
I used to work at a hospital. I used to see this, people dying, catheters. They got bags of chemicals, fluids coming out of their bodies. They got things in their mouths they can't even speak. And a chaplain can come in and give them the gospel, and they can trust in Christ.
And some morons will say baptism is necessary for salvation. Some idiots will say this. And that would mean that such a person who's trusted in Christ goes to hell because he didn't get dunked in water.
I mean, such idiocy, such foolishness from people who claim to follow Christ. They're not. They're following an agenda. You got to believe in what God has said and not what your stupid church has said.
Whether it be the stupid Church of Christ idiocy, the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Pentecostal, or whatever. Even the Nazarenes are going south now. You know, you got to start believing the Word of God and study the Word of God.
And no, you can't lose your salvation because Jesus did it all. And if you don't like it that God elected people for salvation, then throw out Romans. Throw out Ephesians. Throw out Galatians. Because that's what it says.
Throw out the book of Acts. It's got that stuff in there too. Sheesh, my question at 933 just got missed. Tulip, put your question in again. It's scrolling up. God only knows the elect. Only God knows the elect.
I know I'm elect. I know I'm elect. It doesn't mean I'm special and I know because I'm special. I know because I'm saved. And only the elect are going to be saved. And I know I'm saved by the blood of Christ.
So Dottie, if you say only God knows the elect, then that means the individuals who are saved can't know that they're really saved. That's not a, you know, be careful. If you want to say only God does the electing, now that's correct.
The Bible says you can know. 1 John 5 .13, these things are written so you may know you have eternal life. You guys can wrestle with God's word. Do you believe in the Sabbath? Jesus broke the Sabbath.
And go to Romans 5 .18, excuse me, John 5 .18. Not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but calling God his own father, making himself equal to God. What he was doing was breaking what the Jews thought the Sabbath was in their legalism.
Jesus could not break the law of God. Come on. Let's see. Man doesn't know the heart of another. That's correct. I don't know the heart of anybody else. I'm having enough trouble figuring mine out. Jesus was a fulfillment of the Sabbath.
That's correct. That's why he says, come to me, I'll give you rest. Matthew 11 .28, Luke 10 .22 or 23. Jesus, yes, Jesus' agenda. Jesus was a fulfillment of sacrifices. Yes. A sacrifice wasn't complete until the lamb was eaten.
That's what Mark Rohn, the Catholic says. A sacrifice wasn't complete until the lamb was eaten. If that's the case, then your own Roman Catholic Church works against you, Mark Rohn, because it says that when the wafer is broken and it's offered up, it's the sacrificed body and blood of Christ.
So it's already the sacrifice before it's eaten. Oops. Okay, Mark, go like this. Mark, do this. Go like this. Then go like this. Look to your left. Then go like this. And slap yourself upside the head.
And then to get rid of Catholicism, do this. Hold your fist like this and go, until you repent. Yeah, this is mature. I just get, you know, what happens when I get so frustrated with the heresies and the less than critical thinking abilities of a lot of people who actually are warring against the Word of God.
And then I have to try to undo the tension, my goof around. Okay, how can you have joy in what you can't know? You can't ignore Scripture. Yeah, okay, I don't know. Can man know if another one is the elect?
Yes. Yes, I can. I know Paul, the Apostle was elect. He's a chosen vessel. Acts 9 .15. Peter was elect. Jesus was chosen by God to do this. The Word was. So yeah, John the Apostle. Good enough. Slick, are you familiar with Dr. James White?
Yes. And his dialogue in a church and mosque with Muslim leader Yusuf explaining the differences between Christian and Islam. What do you think of that? No, I'm not familiar with it. I do know that James knows what he's doing.
James and I have talked on more than one occasion. No, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Very good. Thanks, Matt. You're welcome, Alex. Okay, come on. Give me some questions here. Did you get that, Mark Rome?
That was for you. And the others are anti-culture minions. Don't have all your doctrinal paws in the litter box.
Okay, there are some people that believe if you commit suicide, you go to hell.
Nope. So that's a blanket statement. If you commit suicide, you're going to hell. Really? So is that the unforgivable sin? No, it's not. If someone is a Christian and they kill themselves, does it mean that they're not going to heaven?
Now, actually, we actually know somebody that has recently happened to. He's a Christian and he shot himself. Now, there are different reasons for people doing this or different factors that lead up to it.
You can have someone who is mentally distraught. I mean, just mentally distraught and they're on meds and they drop their meds. They do this and it is spiraled out of control. They kill themselves. They could do it accidentally.
They could do it on purpose. What about people under extreme torture? Not that I'm going to say this just makes it okay, but, you know, suicide under every circumstance. What do you do if hypothetically there's a guy who's being tortured?
He has a way to kill himself and he knows pretty soon he's going to break and divulge all the information that's going to save a country or a nation or whatever, you know, and thousands are going to die.
I mean, does that make that kind of a situation? Does it mean he's sinned if he kills himself? I don't know. Is self-killing a sin? Yes, but you see, look at it this way. So Jesus bore all of Bob's sin.
Let's say Bob commits suicide and Bob was a Christian his whole life. If that suicide sin is not paid for and forgiven, then that would mean that Jesus did not pay for all of his sins and he was a Christian at the same time.
But if he did, was a Christian at the same time and all of his sin is forgiven, then fine. Then when he died, he does, he probably have a great loss of reward in heaven, but he's saved by the blood of Christ.
Now some people will object and say, Matt, he broke the law. Then you're saying you keep your salvation by your obedience to the law. People who criticize and they say things like this, you better be real careful.
You better examine yourself to see if you're in the faith. Because a lot of people, what they'll do is they'll say, you know what, you got to keep the law in order to be saved. You can't kill yourself, that's murder, therefore you lose your salvation.
Oh, so you keep it by keeping the law, right? You know, their arrogance is before them and it blinds them. I don't say people who commit suicide are automatically killed. What do you do about someone who is in a hospital situation and is in incredible pain and it just got a matter of days before he's going to die or she's going to die.
I'm not saying this is okay. These are questions you have to ask and by administering their own treatment, they can end their own life. Is that wrong? I tend to say, well, probably it is wrong, but maybe it isn't.
You know, I have to look at all of the issues and I'm not saying every single circumstance is included under, if you commit suicide, you go into hell. Really? Every single type, every single instances?
What about accidental suicide? Someone stood up, worked for 40 hours straight to save some money to send his daughter to a camp. On the way home from work, he's so tired he falls asleep at the wheel and kills himself in a crash.
That's an accidental suicide because he did the things he shouldn't have done and risked himself at that. So in June 19th, 1976, I was driving my 1966 -1967 SS Camaro up Turnbull Canyon in Whittier Road and I accelerated because some guys in the back, hey, what's so great about this place?
And I punched it and lost control as a guy was in my lane. I spun out and went over an embankment. I got scars. If you guys get close, you can see them. And it took two years to fully recover. All right, what if I'd have died?
Now, is that suicide? Because I'm the one who was driving. I'm the one who's in control. I'm the one who did what I did. I made a bad choice and had a consequence. So what if I'd have killed myself in that?
That's a form of suicide. So most people would say, no, suicide is the intentional, you know you're going to do this. That's what killing yourself is. But you can have accidental suicide as well as intentional.
People have overdosed with sleeping pills, not realizing. I've heard of a person who was having memory problems and took pills and forgot, took pills, took them again and forgot, took them again and killed himself.
You know, it's just, I look at all kinds of situations. So that's all. Knows Sam. Sam who? Is that what they're talking about? Yeah, I know Sam. Hi, nice shirt. We're going to get one. Hawaii. Okay, Dodie.
Yes, Matt knows Sam. They participated in a debate in Seattle a year or two ago. Yep, he moderated a debate I was in. And the reason they had me debate and not Sam, this is the real reason. Sam's too good for the opponent.
They wanted someone of lesser caliber to match the level of the Muslim. So they asked me. And that's not being humble. That's a fact. Sam Shimon is the man when it comes to Islam. And he has forgotten more since lunch today than I've learned about Islam.
The guy's incredible. Some people say they have died and come back to life. I said they have experienced hell or heaven. Do you believe that they can actually experience hell or heaven and come back to life?
Yes, I do personally believe that. Yes, I know a guy who I actually know a guy, Salt Lake City, who he was shot seven times and he, he survived. And he told me he saw the Lord on the other side. I was going through a book on NDEs, near death experiences.
I kind of put it aside. Three months ago, I got to pick it up again and read through it. And I always like to do research on different topics. And what convinced me in the book that NDEs really are real.
My friend that I know told me to my face this. I believe him. He loves the Lord. He's a good Christian. But there are people born blind who have NDEs. It's on record, been documented. Born blind and they have no memory of seeing anything.
They're on the table. They're dead in the hospital. They're working on them, bringing them back. After 5 -10 minutes, they come back to life. And they, when they wake up and recover, they describe what they saw.
And there's no possible way they could have known what was going on. And that to me is proof that NDEs are real. A person knows they are saved not by praying a prayer, that's correct, but by repentance and faith in the work of Christ.
Because repentance and faith are the work of Christ. Our repentance is granted to us by God, 2 Timothy 2 .25. Our believing is the work of God, Philippians 1 .29 and John 6 .28 .29. We see evidence of Jesus working in us.
That's true. We see the work of God, the fruit of that. Hatred of sin, love of righteousness, love of brethren. Yeah, that's working. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the house of bread. That's correct. Micah 5 .2.
There's a prophecy about that. He's placed in a manger feeding trout for animals. Yeah, read John 6 in this context. That's the Catholic again. Okay, how many paws are in the theology box? Yeah, I think he's got like one and the other ones are out there.
He's like, maybe he was hitting himself and he's not, maybe he tried it. Hey, you know what? I tried it. It felt good. I just kept going. No, listen. What? Can't find the box? He's all backed up. I don't know.
I shouldn't say stuff like that. Did you see James White debate versus Robert Spencer today? No. They debated. Where can I find this debate? I don't know. Did Adam have free will? Define free will. Free will, libertarian or compatibilist.
Libertarian free will says that a person is not bound by his sinfulness in the sense, oh, wait a minute, crud. All right. So we have libertarian free will. And this is the first time I've done this. We have hard libertarianism and we have soft libertarianism.
Soft libertarianism, in my opinion, is pretty much identical to compatibilism. Okay. And true in the context of Molinists, they believe in total depravity. Total depravity is a problem. Even Molina taught that total depravity incapacitates a person's free will from being able to choose Christ.
So the solution is this, prevenient grace. Whoa, that sounds so nice. Prevenient grace. It's like Spongebob. Use your imagination. Prevenient grace. Because I think it's a joke. I really do. I'll explain why.
So libertarianism or free will is the ability to make willful, willed choices, okay, that are not coerced. Okay. The soft libertarians would add it's consistent with your nature of total depravity. Okay.
The hard libertarians would say that you're free to choose option A or B. A or B. Doesn't matter. Okay. Just you choose option A or B. And this could be good and this could be bad. So libertarians would say you can choose A or B as good or bad in the hard libertarianism.
I hope I'm getting this right. And the soft libertarianism says you can only choose just what's consistent with your sinful nature, which I think is compatibilism. Now, compatibilism says that man's free will and God's predestination are compatible.
Okay. Are compatible. Free will and predestination work together. Libertarians say free will and predestination don't work together. That's what they're saying. Libertarianism would say, and there's different, there's different, trust me, these, not just these two, I guess, you know, the hard libertarians with a soft leaning on Tuesday, they're getting into some weird ones.
So, so anyway, because of total depravity, Melina, this is the context what I've been talking about, and others who are hold to prevenient grace, taught that God's prevenient grace is necessary to bring someone to a place of belief.
But Melina's view would have to fall into here of soft libertarianism, because which is basically the view that we would hold here. So I find a problem here, but you see, we Calvinists, because we're Bible believers, would say that God opens the heart of the mind to, you know, Luke 24, 45, and Acts 16, 14, open the heart of Lydia to believe.
We're born again, not of our own will, John 1, 13. Cause he born again, 1 Peter 1, 3. I can go on. Where these, these guys would say that free will chooses by whom you'll serve, which is a bad verse. I think it's Joshua 24, 15, right about there.
Choose which pagan God you're going to serve. You know, I just blew the mind of a bunch of Molinists. And so prevenient grace, let's talk about that. So prevenient grace is of two times within Molinism.
This is fresh in my mind. And it works into varying degrees of contemporary prevenient grace theories. Prevenient grace, you have total depravity of a person, but prevenient grace. So total depravity plus prevenient grace equals, I could do something like this.
How do you add D plus G equals, equals mostly totally depraved. Just mostly, not all the way dead, just mostly dead. So mostly dead, mostly total depravity, which means, now get this, prevenient grace does something to the person who's still totally depraved, but not regenerate, to enable them to freely believe in God again.
But they're still totally depraved and not regenerate. And this prevenient grace works in them and makes them mostly totally depraved. That's one view. The other view, which Molina taught, was that circumstances, God and his providence, a range of circumstances that when, when Bob, Bob's walking and God's doing stuff and directing him here and go there and go this way.
And he gets to the place where God wants him right here. Then God regenerates him. Because as long as he does not resist God along the way, then what happens is God will regenerate him. As long as he doesn't resist him.
A total depraved person, a slave of sin, Romans 6, 14 through 20. A hater of God who does no good, Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12. Deadness, trespasses, and sins, Ephesians 2, 1. By nature, child of wrath, Ephesians 2, 3.
As long as he doesn't do anything bad. Who's going to be that? Who's that who doesn't do anything bad? As long as he's neutral in his morality. Whoa. Seriously, Molinism to me, I've really studied it a lot recently.
And I'm like, you've got to be kidding me. Seriously. I don't buy it for a second. I used to wonder if it had any counterfactuals and middle knowledge and all this stuff. No way. So anyway, why does one person believe and another one does not when God gives provenient grace to them?
It's because of their free will. But God made their free will. So why does one believe? Because of their free will. And then we've got a problem. So I forget what the question was. So it's their free will.
And what was the question? Free will what? In heaven? Huh? Free will? It's the ability to make choices consistent with their nature that are uncoerced. Okay. It's the ability to make decisions and choices consistent with their nature that are not coerced.
All right. Now, so I'm thinking of a concept. And I want you to tell me if you're going to believe in the concept. Do you accept it as being true or not true? Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Tell me. True or not true?
You believe it or not true? You believe it or don't believe it? You don't believe it? So what's the obvious problem here? Don't know what the concept is. Right? The concept is that there's an ice cream factory in the fourth largest moon of Jupiter.
Okay. The thing is, in order to make a choice, you have to have awareness. Okay. You have to have awareness. If I say make a choice, I don't tell you what it is. You can't choose. You don't know. So you have choice requires awareness of options.
All right. We'll just leave it at that. Right? But also, it requires that you have to be able to, let's put it this way. Put it this way. You have to be able to conceive of an idea of something. You have to have a conception.
Now, not only do you have to have a conception, you have to be able to choose. So you can't choose what you're not aware of. So your choices are restricted by your nature automatically. So your choices, you have to have awareness, but can you choose something you can't be aware of?
What if you can't be aware? Okay. Energy equals the mass, equals mass times the speed of light squared. I have no idea what that really means. Can I say it's true or false? I don't know. People tell me it's true.
The guys with the big heads and the big final glasses, you know, they walk around like this and they have a bunch of books and they walk like that. They say it's true. All right. So if I'm not aware of something, I can't make a choice about it.
Now, I can be aware of other people's decisions and things like that. So our choices are affected by our ability to understand, our ability to comprehend by the ability to conceive of something. And if we're generally, it's assumed, which I'm still going to work on this one, that you have to be able to freely make a choice in order for it to be free will.
But you can be caused to make a choice that's free. People don't know that. You can cause someone to do something that's out of their free will. See? So by throwing a little piece of chalk, I caused him to move, but he freely chose to move, right?
So I can affect people and make them do something, yet they're freely doing it. So that would be compatibilism. That God can predestine people to do free things. And not only that, if you go to John 5 .19, and I can remember some other verses in here, Jesus says, I can do nothing of my own initiative, but only what the Father has given me to do.
I can do, I can say nothing unless the Father has given me the words. That's compatibilism. That's compatibilism right there. And the libertarians will say, but you have to be able to choose between good and bad and be able to accomplish them.
So you have to be able to accomplish this. Choice has to be awareness, and you have to be able to accomplish. I didn't go far enough. Had to be able to accomplish. That's what they're going to say. But if that's the case, you have good and bad, then did Jesus have free will?
Because Jesus could not have chosen to do anything bad. So free will has to be defined as the ability to make uncoerced choices consistent with your nature. That's what free will is. All right. And it looks like Jesus had compatibilist free will, because he said he could do nothing of his own initiative.
That's what he said. And he could do nothing unless he sees the Father do it. And his words he speaks are not his own words, but the words the Father gave to him. Compatibilism out of the words of Christ himself.
Okay. All right. James White is a smart guy. He's a good stuff. I get a kick out of Sam. I get a kick out of Sam being so critical of others when he's obviously obese and is not taking care of the body God gave him.
Oh, man. Well, I've had many conversations with Sam about all kinds of stuff, Dottie. And let me tell you, that's something you should really focus on. The answer to every problem is bowing to the leadership of Christ.
Amen. Biblical theology with sound exposition under the rule of Holy Spirit. Yes. Did Adam have free will? Yes. He freely chose to sin. I understand that Adam, that after Adam, man cannot choose God because he is dead.
Correct. Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12. Romans 6, 14 through 20. That's correct. Michael A. Williams asks, how would you respond to an atheist who says, give me irrefutable proof that your God exists? I would respond by saying this.
Well, what would be irrefutable proof for you? Because what's irrefutable proof for one person may not be irrefutable proof for another. And they say, I don't know. It's up to you. I go, wait a minute.
I'm not a mind reader. What would do it for you? You got to tell me. And if you don't know what irrefutable proof is, don't ask me to do your job for you. Then tell the atheist, go like this. Put your hand up.
Who is in the wrong? James White or Sam Shimon? I don't know the issues sufficiently. So I'm just keeping out of it. They can settle it themselves. I'm not their arbitrator. If they both come to me and ask for my advice, then I'll study and give it.
But they haven't asked me. None of my business. Basically, Sam is getting on James for what I've heard. I've heard from more than one place, and from people that I consider reliable, that Sam thinks James is getting too chummy with the Muslims, basically.
That's very basic. You can't derive anything specific out of that, but that's basically what it is. And how do you discern mistakenly interpreting omens for God, leading you to do something? How do you discern mistakenly?
How do you do it? I could tell you how to make mistakes. How you learn how to do it wrong? Just follow me around. But if you're asking, how do you discern if your interpretation is wrong? Go to the scriptures.
And sometimes you just got to wait and see if it works out. That's how you know. How do you, okay, Matt, there you go. You've got a question for me, put in the word Matt, generally with a comma, and then you get whatever.
Matt, what is, is your feelings to what it seems like that more and more people are covering their bodies with tattoos. It's not the body of the temple of the God. I think tattoos is an admission of weakness to some degree, and some people, but not others.
Personally, I don't like tattoos, but I think a lot of people want to identify with something, and so they externally do something. I don't know all their motives, but I'm not fond of them. I've noticed some people I believe that do them because they have weaknesses, but others I know don't.
So I, you know, I couldn't tell you too much about that. Let's see, regarding Judas' possession about what Luke 22, 3, how do you interpret please? How do I interpret please? Please is a good word, and it's generally showing politeness, which I think is good.
That's how I interpret please. It's something that should be, you should do more often, say please. That's what I think. Luke 22, 3, not John. Luke 22, 3, and Satan entered into Judas, who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
This happened when he went out into the night after betraying Christ, and at the supper. He hadn't betrayed him yet. After the supper, he went out into the darkness. That's when Satan entered into him.
How do I interpret that? That Satan entered into him. That's what it says. Matt, some say Greek mythology came before Christianity. Is this true? Yes. How good, wait what? Matt, the facts are that Sam is calling James a useful idiot, and this is awful.
Wow. Well, again, I don't have time to study what they have, and if they want to talk to me about it, I'd be glad to help out. So, you know, I'm not going to get in the middle of it with these guys, okay.
So, when they settle it, they can settle it. Is a Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation biblical? No. Or Swingly's symbolic view? I would go more symbolism. I'm kind of happy between consubstantiation and symbolic view.
Consubstantiation basically is in, with, and under, but the elements are still the elements. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which says the elements actually change in their nature, the Roman Catholics say that they don't change in their nature, what I understand, and yet there's a real presence of Christ there in a similar way of the Roman Catholic Church.
And so I think they're closer to biblical truth, but I still don't buy it. I just don't think, you know, I think the elements are covenant signs, as Jesus said. This is blood of my new covenant. Jesse Teller, Catholic, asked, oh, cool.
Matt, what books of the Bible should I begin with? For what purpose? Begin with for what? Get some water. What should you begin with? Poetry? Psalms. Sexuality? Song of Solomon. Conversion accounts? Acts.
Doctrine? Romans. UFOs? Daniel. I start with the New Testament. I start with John, just keep reading from John, because the four gospels are repetitive. Just start with John, just start reading. Come on, ask me some questions, you guys.
Where should I begin with the Bible? Okay, Matt, please briefly cover the transcendental argument. It's come under fire recently. You guys taking off? Okay. The kid? How old's your kid? Oh, where, girl?
Oh, okay. Levi, that's nice. See you, God bless. Now, basically, I'll do the basics. Tag is a transcendental argument for God's existence. Okay. Basically, that's what tag is. So, what's a transcendental?
A transcendental is an abstraction that is universal and is not dependent upon human minds. So, examples of transcendentals would be, let's just say, the laws of logic. And those are stuff like the law of identity, something is what it is and is not what it is not.
The law of non-contradiction. Oh, I got some verbs. Law of non-contradiction, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same way. The law of excluded and miserable, a statement is either true or false.
You get other inferences and things like this, A equals B and B equals C and A equals C. These are logical conclusions. So, anyway, those are abstractions. Here's some other abstractions too. Laws of logic.
Duckness or chair-ness or car or stereo or tree. Okay. So, these are abstractions. See, if I took a duck, made a duck right here, and I killed this duck and ate it, is duckness gone? No. What that duck is, is a particular instance of duckness.
So, what is this right here? Is that a number two? Is it the number two, the transcendental nature number two? Is that it right there? Because if it is, it's gone. We can't use two anymore, any place, any time.
That is an instance of two-ness. So, mathematics numbers are transcendental. Transcendentals are abstractions. Now, I haven't heard anybody confirm this to me, but as I've been thinking about it, they seem to be abstractions.
We recognize they require minds and things like that. Justice is an abstraction. Goodness is an abstraction. Duckness, laws of logic, these are all abstractions. They're transcendental. Now, one of the arguments of Tagg has to do with the laws of logic.
Now, it can go here as well, because this gets into morality and things like this. But I've been, I'm known for this one, all right. And so, I actually want to talk to you about this, Jamie. We could talk about this afterwards.
I'll show you afterwards, the camera's off, I'll show you something. But at any rate, so the laws of logic, okay. So, these are transcendental things. So, what's the best way to explain, to account for them?
God or not God? So, we have God as an option or everything else besides God, not God, which is everything else, the universe, anything, the physical realm. So, here's the, these are the options that we can use to account for this.
There is no third option. It's a true dichotomy, God or not God. But the not God isn't nothing, it's everything else. A lot of people miss that point, but nevertheless. So, which of these perspectives can account for what's called the necessary preconditions for intelligibility?
Necessary preconditions. A necessary precondition for this laptop being here, this tablet, laptop combo, being here is this. If this weren't here as a foundation, this would not be here. And of course the floor for this foundation, etc.
But let's just stick with these two. With this as the foundation for this, what if this were the laws of logic? What's the foundation that makes them possible to be there? That's the question. Since they're transcendental, since they're abstractions, and I believe all transcendentals are abstractions.
Now, maybe I'm wrong about that. I'm open to be corrected by that, about that. But that seems to be the case. I think that's reasonable, but I'm no expert on this kind of thought. So, if they're abstractions, here's a question.
Do all abstractions require a mind? Certainly would seem so. Now, if we look at the laws of logic, we know that they are transcendent, okay, which means they do not depend on time or space, where you are, time or space for their validity.
So, wherever you are, or whenever you are, they're still, they're still true. And the laws of logic are absolute. So, we have transcendent, we have absolute. What that means is, and what that means is that they do not, what's the symbol for change?
Is it a triangle? Triangle? So, yeah, change. So, they do not change, negation. So, they're absolute because they don't change. So, they're transcendent, they're absolute, and they are abstractions, okay.
If they're abstractions, abstractions, absolute, transcendent. How do you account for these characteristics of the laws of logic? By anything without God. That's the question. Now, that's a tough thing for me to prove because, can the carpet hear?
How about the paint on that wall? How about the paint on that wall? How about the paint on that door? Whatever it is, because people could posit, you know, functionally an infinite amount of options. But what that comes down to, ultimately, is the physical realm.
And anything in the physical realm as a necessary foundation, okay, as the foundation for the laws of logic, which are here. So, they say the physical realm would be the foundation. And things to do with the physical realm, that paint, this carpet.
But, you can't have, it would seem to be, okay, you can't have transcendentals, which are abstractions, be in a physical universe without a universal mind, without a mind. So, the only option they really got is to say they're of human minds, human minds.
But that's a problem because my mind is different than your mind. And what I think might be true, you might not think is true. And what happens if I happen to be the author, or the one who recognizes the dependence of transcendental laws of logic on my mind, and I die, what happens?
They're gone. And no one can think properly, and blue sleeves faster than Wednesday. So, you see, there's problems. Yeah, progressivism. Yeah. So, basically, what's going on here is the idea that the no-god option is simplified, basically, is not a valid option, and the only one left is God.
And it makes sense, too, because transcendentals require a mind, hence God. That's, this is the basic argument for God's existence using transcendentals. Okay. That makes sense, you guys? Any more? It's 9 30.
Usually clear about now. Lame. Why, is Dave on there? You know I'm going to pick on you if you show up. I'm not going to pick on anybody. I don't pick on the ladies very much. Neanderthal boy and lame question man.
So, and I already got you. I only, I only get the guys. That's, and what? I'm a smart man. That's right, yeah. I walk into walls a lot, like five times in a row. It's not working. Okay. On Carn page, that a spouse divorcing for unbiblical reasons is grounds for remarriage.
What? On your Carn page, you say that. I don't say that it's grounds for remarriage. However, 1 Corinthians 7, it says that separated spouse must remain single. He's playing. Now, I don't think you represented me properly, but if you did, then I mistyped it, and I need to know that.
So, but divorcing for unbiblical reason is grounds for remarriage. No, no, no. It's not grounds for remarriage. If you divorce, what I tell people is if you divorce your spouse for unbiblical reasons, you shouldn't get remarried.
Period. That's it. That's what I have said for years. That's my position. But what do you do if, let's say, Bob and Cindy, actually no people named Bob and Cindy. That's why I said Bob and Cindy. But not the Bob and Cindy from our church.
It's Bob and Cindy. Okay, because Bob, Cindy, and so Bob and Cindy, I should probably pick somebody else, they get a divorce for unbiblical reasons. Whatever, who's guilty or not, whatever. And let's say Bob remarries, and he was a Christian when he did this.
He's sliding, obviously, wasn't doing well, and he gets remarried. Is the marriage valid? Yes. It's a valid marriage. He needs to repent of his sin and not divorce his present wife. He needs to remain faithful.
He's not eligible to be an elder or deacon in the church. Period. That's gone. He knew better. He made a mistake. And what we are in the business of doing is forgiving people and promoting the forgiveness of Christ.
People have made all kinds of mistakes, and we're not here to be legalists to kill people, and we're not justifying people getting divorced. Divorce is not automatically a sin because God issued Israel a writ of divorce.
Hosea or Jeremiah, I forgot which. I can remember that. One of those ones I have trouble memorizing. But can the other spouse remarry? So let's say Bob is the one doing the bad stuff, and he doesn't like the way Cindy dresses, and it really bothers him.
And after five years of this, he's had enough. He divorces her because, and the reason, I don't like the clothes she wears. That's not good grounds for divorce. Okay, unless she's wearing a bikini everywhere she goes, and got a problem.
I mean, well, that's not a good grounds. Let's sidetrack myself into oblivion. So that's not a good thing. She is willing to work on the marriage. She, let's say, well, I'll dress better, and she tries, and he's not happy, and she's working on it, and he says, forget this, and he divorces her.
She's free. She didn't do anything wrong. He's the one who did something wrong. She's free to remarry because she did everything right, you know, within reason, of course. Seeing counseling, and all this stuff.
What's your view of 2 Thessalonians 2, 1 through 12? I like it. I think it's good, and I think we should read it and study it. That's my view of it. I think that it's a good pericope. I'd recommend everybody read those verses, 2 Thessalonians 2, 1 through 12.
I would. That's my view of that. Matt, when Jesus called to the Father on the cross, was he speaking as a man or as God? He's speaking as a person of Christ who had two natures. You don't want to separate them into Nestorian error, which one was talking.
We don't do that. The man, Jesus, was speaking. The person of Christ, Father, in your hands. I commit my spirit. I commit my spirit. So, that's just part of what it means in the hypothetic union. The one person in two distinct natures.
The one person was speaking. God bless you, brother Matt. Love this show. I didn't have any reform fellowship here whatsoever. I really appreciate you guys. Good. Praise God. Harold,.
Yes, what? To me? Yes. Okay. So, can we go back to Luke 22, 3? Then Satan entered Judas. So, it's the question, the first question I asked about Judas, or that people have asked about Judas being demon-possessed.
Thank you. Demon-possessed. Oh, I thought you said Jesus.
Was possessed. Did I say Jesus? Yes. Sorry, I meant Judas. You know what? I didn't hear you right. Well, I may have said Jesus, but I'm sorry. Whatever. Judas. Judas. He was possessed. Luke 22,.
3. Yes. Okay. So, this is, so, okay. I'll try to ask my questions a little better. I could have heard them all. Yes, I would have never said Jesus was possessed. He can't be.
Possessed. Oh, he can't. Some people have asked a question, though. Oh. Oh, yes. Okay. Yes. I've not.
Heard. That makes a lot more sense, because I didn't understand why you were so bothered by.
Judas being possessed. I was like, Matt. Yeah, it's like, oh, that hit a nerve. I heard Jesus,.
Too, so. So, she heard it, and I heard it. Whatever. And that's what I heard. Whatever.
Yeah, but I think that's why the person brought us to this. Okay. So, somewhere out there, whoever brought this question up knew what I was trying to get to. Okay. So. Yes, he was possessed. Yes, he was possessed.
So, does that mean he's accountable for what he did or not accountable.
For what he did? Yes, absolutely. So, the anger of God incited David to number Israel. That's 2 Samuel 24, verse 1, I believe. And 2 Samuel 24, 10, David says, I have sinned against God by numbering the people.
But yet, also, in 2 Chronicles 21, 1, I think. Let me see if I got this right. I'm trying to remember these things. I've got to force myself. 2 Chronicles 22. No, 21, I said. 21. Oh, man. Come on. Hurry up.
I was wrong. I don't know where it is. Maybe it's 24, 1. I think it's 2. Anyway, it says Satan incited him to number Israel. I've got it someplace. It's on my website. But it's in one verse, we have Satan inciting him.
Another one, the anger of the Lord incited him, and yet David was responsible. That's what it says. How does that work? Bible doesn't tell us. Not my problem. You know, I just say it's what it says. Also, you can go to Acts 4 .27 .28 with Acts 2 .23.
Now, those I know are right because there it says that God predestined Pontius Pilate, Herod, the Jews, and the Gentiles to do what God had predestined them to do, and it was to crucify Christ, which was sinful.
So then by doing that, uh, they were the ones responsible for Acts 2 .23. 4 .27 .28. So here we go. Yeah, Acts 4 .27 .28, and cross-reference that with Acts 2 .23. And then the other verse is 2 Samuel 24 .1.
Now again, the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, go number Israel and Judah. And then 1 Chronicles 21 .1, then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.
1 Chronicles 21 .1. All right, and yet when you go to 2 Samuel 24 .10, it says very clearly, I'll read it to you, uh, 2 Samuel 24. Oh man, how'd that happen? 2 Samuel 24 .10. Now David's heart troubled him after he had numbered the people.
So David said to the Lord, I have sinned greatly in what I've done. How does that work? I don't know. Yep. He's responsible that God arranged him to do that. Now, libertarians would say, no, no. But the smart ones would say, we have ways of figuring this out, but it still is a problem.
They're still responsible. Yeah. But in a case of being brainwashed and tricked and things like that, where you lose some of your free will, that's why a trial at that point is necessary. Because what if we were on a, on a jury and we know that this one particular guy was brainwashed repeatedly, repeatedly.
There's a certain, you know, it's, it's ambiguous, but there's a certain place where you say, well, he wasn't really responsible. You know? Yeah, there's a degree. Uh, and that's the thing that in particular instances, you have to know all the facts.
But when I'm thinking brainwashing, I'm thinking under bright lights, I, you know, let's open the drugs and see deprivation and, you know, that is very forceful. The, the Mormons, they voluntarily walk into this.
And so the different, but yeah, they're brainwashed. Maybe I heard it wrong. Cause remember I have a hearing loss and 80 decibels. You heard Judas? Okay. What'd you hear? Jesus? What'd you, oh, you weren't hearing Jesus.
Okay. It's all right. No big deal. Okay. That's it's all good. Yeah. He was definitely possessed and it noticed it happened when he went out into the darkness, out into the night. I just think it's interesting out into the dark.
It's like in my, I noticed those kinds of things in my novel. I put in symbols like in, in, uh, at the beginning of the novel, Mark goes out in the backyard and there's two trees. They remind you of, right?
And which tree is the one that demons come down on? And he tries to kill himself. Which tree is it? It's the left one, not the right one. Because on the day of judgment, the left are the ones damned and the right are the ones saved.
And so there's little symbols I put in there and things like that, that a lot of people just miss. But I, you know, what's that? I'll be on your toes. And the next one, when I write, I'm going to put a whole bunch of these things in there.
And then I want to write an appendix, giving people clues to things. And I actually want to do something, if I can, is just put a note in something like, and say, turn to chapter whatever, and look at the seventh word of every paragraph.
Okay. And then just, just like that, of that chapter and see if I can construct codes and things like that for fun. Huh? It'd be, uh, yeah. But my first novel is the, the influence. The second one is going to be called the deception.
I got four chapters written already. Yeah. Yep. So anyway, anything else? All right. We are okay. Oh my goodness. It's quarter to 10. Why don't we just bail? What? Piercings? Well, you know, I've been pierced in the heart many times by the, by the sin that I've done.
I've been convicted. Uh, in fact, I've, I've been pierced with needles when they've given me anesthesia. I don't think that's sinful. Um, but you probably mean the tattoo kind of piercing things. What I would say is, um, the Bible doesn't say it's piercings is necessarily of itself always sinful, but I would just urge people to treat their bodies well and to not mark them.
Um, but let what is inside be displayed. That's, that's the general thing I would say. All right. Mark Wahlberg. What about him? That's what I've heard. Yep. What was that? Yeah. We'll get a tattoo that says we're tattooed with a circle slash on it.
Okay. Uh, you thought Judas wasn't possessed earlier. He was influenced, could be oppressed, but he was possessed in Luke 22 three when he went out. What? Yeah. Well, you know, one of those things, whatever.
So, okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. We'll talk about Jesus in that. That's what I thought it was, but whatever. All right. We're going to be done. See you guys in two weeks. We're going to be on July 12th.
We'll be back, back here, July 12th. We'll take some time off. Okay. Yay. All right. Happy fourth, everybody. God bless.
