Debate Man is justified through Faith Alone by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, 8/7/2021

Hey guys Sorry guys.

It's just because I'm an idiot I'm very stupid. You know, I got mental issues.

I actually went on the long wrong live stream. Hold on guys. I Gotta invite everyone back.

I went on the wrong live stream guys Actually, sorry because I'm an idiot guys.

I'm very stupid being stupid. I went on the long rights along Wrong live stream a little sorry what an idiot.

I am boy, man. I make stupid look smart Hold on I gotta send them the links again.

Oh boy. I'm such an idiot man Why am

I was I like was I born stupid or did I have to work on it? There you go. Hold on.

I Just want to jump figuring out. Am I was I born stupid was it just Okay, guys, what do you think you guys think

I was born stupid or do you think maybe I had to work out it or Combination of both. I was born stupid

But then throughout time I became even stupider and stupidity became encrusted in my DNA All right, yeah, hey now we're at the right channel man, what's up, man?

Sorry, but that's everything. Sorry folks invite folks.

We got about 15 second delay by the time you hear some We're just waiting for Matt to show up and we're waiting for everyone else.

I really suspect I was telling them I Was you know, I was telling them.

I'm I think I was born stupid and in throughout time. I become encrusted in me All right

Prophet Google I'm gonna put you in the background and I'm gonna bring you up when we're beginning ready to begin now folks

I'm gonna let the debaters introduce themselves. I'm assuming Did you guys agree since it's man is justified through faith alone

Matt is taking the affirmative so he goes first Right now

Matt if you want, can you give yourself a minute or two to introduce what you do

So you're gonna do me intro him intro then me open Yes, you can do intro and then intro and then we begin and I'll give the format.

All right. Sounds good All right, my name is Matt slick it's my real name born with it learn to run as a kid and was quite skinny so I have a good heart from all that exercise and I'm a

Christian apologist and the Protestant Calvinist persuasion. I've been working on the karm website For almost 26 years.

It's had over 147 million visitors. I've written Nine books including one humor book and a sci -fi novel and some other stuff and I've been doing radio for over 16 years five days a week and we got a newsletter

We got a lot of stuff and I love talking theology and I love discussing things particularly with atheists

That's that's where I really love doing is talking and debating atheists and I'll be debating on the Trinity with oneness next week and the week after and stuff like that, so I live in Idaho and That's where I'm at there you go,

I can't wait for that debate to see you debate the oneness now our brother Seraphim if you can introduce yourself and If you have a website or a

YouTube channel that you want to announce and we'll put all the links to your sites in Description box the

Lord willing as soon as this is not good brother Yes, so my youtube name is cabane

The URL is youtube .com slash cabane the Christian For a long time at least what seems like a long time for me.

My main interest has been Theology and coming to a unified interpretation of the world through the lens of Jesus Christ because when

I was 13 or 14 I went through a major crisis of faith where it seemed to me like Christianity might not actually be true and since that time

I have step -by -step journeyed back into the faith and Into the position where everything in the creation

Seems more beautiful more rich through the lens of the glory of Jesus Christ and especially important to me is the unity of the scriptures

Because it was apprehending the absolute unity which pervades the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation Which really at a deep level made me see that everything bears witness to the glory of God in Jesus Christ So I also have an interest in engaging with atheists naturalists in showing how

Christianity makes sense of the world but within that biblical framework, I'm interested in debating and dialoguing with Protestants and trying to argue that the tradition as it is understood by the

Orthodox Church really does play a clarifying role in making sense of Scripture even on its own terms

So that's what I'm into. I also have a blog on tumblr of all places. That's cabane 1552 .tumblr

.com and cabane means absolutely nothing It was I invented it as a lego .com username when

I was in fourth grade So it means nothing it was based on kaboom because I thought explosions were cool

So I just wanted to throw that out there because it is a bit of an odd username Okay.

Now that said just to give you the format and even before I do that There's about a 15 second delay

From when they say something and it reaches you on the live stream So be that as it may we're gonna start up start up with 10 minute opening statements followed up by 10 minute rebuttals and then there's going to be a free -for -all from anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour the debaters can decide the exact time and Then we're gonna have five minute closing statements and then

Lord willing Q &A but the questions must be related related to the topic if one thing

I want to advise all the Christians in the channel No ad hominems. No attacks.

No insults You can have a passionate debate in the comment section But keep it respectful and do not insult any of the debaters or mock any of the debate debaters

Respect them for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we're gonna have profit Google timing the

Opening statements rebuttals and Closing statements. So profit Google.

I'm gonna bring you up and when he gets to the five -minute mark announced in five minutes and then one minute and then time and They said that even if they go over time by 30 seconds, no biggie

So with that said may the triune God be glorified. I'm gonna bring profit Google Here you go, and me and Cobain will be in the background

All right, I guess I'm on as soon as he hits the go I Guess I'll just go

Proper Google let him know what he can go say go and start timing. Oh ready I'm ready and let's go.

All right Well, first of all, thank you for having me on and I hope to be able to represent what

I believe the biblical position on justification imputation and we'll see so It is either the case that the

Christian is justified through faith alone in the imputed righteousness of Christ Or it is not the case.

I affirm that it is the case and I will show it from Scripture My opponent will have to demonstrate from Scripture that we are not justified through faith alone by the imputed righteousness of Christ Logically, if it is not by faith alone in Christ's work

Then it must be be must be by faith and something that we do Now according to Eastern Orthodox sources justification deals with quote

Man's communion in the risen body of Christ in the divine life that is on deification by grace close quote

I have the documentation where I got these from the different sources and That justification open quote deals with how a person comes into and maintains a right relationship with God Justification is accomplished at baptism and maintained through a life of obedience to God and confession of sins close quote.

I America website that quote not only loving deeds But also the sacraments of baptism and the

Eucharist are decisive to salvation close quote so in EEO Eastern Orthodox justification is obtained through communion with Jesus and baptism and is maintained through a life of obedience and Participation of the

Eucharist now, it's not quite this simple. But for this this debate, that's where I'm going to be working from and attacking

So I searched about 20 Eastern Orthodox sources for information on imputation

The best I found was in the Orthodox study Bible prepared under the auspices of the academic community of st.

Athanasius Academy of Orthodox theology Jack Norman sparks PhD In its commentary on Romans 4 11 through 12 found on page 15 49.

It says that impute means reckoned or rendered That's good Now that is the

Greek word legitimate which occurs many times in the Greek New Testament other translations render it as counted credited imputed a

Particular interest in our discussion is Romans 4 1 through 6 where the word occurs several times in another

Eastern Orthodox Bible called the Eastern Orthodox Bible of the New Testament Romans 4 1 through 6 says this

What then shall we say that Abraham our father according to the flesh has found? Certainly if Abraham was justified by works.

He has something to boast about although not before God For what does the scripture say Abraham believed

God and was accounted its note here says reckoned or credited Accounted to him as righteousness now to the one who works the reward is not considered

As legitimate as a grace but as something owed but to the one who does not work

But believes in the one who justifies in godly It is faith that is accounted for righteousness

Even as David also pronounces blessing on the man to whom God attributes righteousness apart from works

Due to kind time constraints. I can't focus on a whole bunch of stuff out of that But I'll be focusing mainly on verse 5 the

EOB Eastern Orthodox Bible says but to the one who does not work But believes in the one who justifies the ungodly it is faith that is accounted for righteousness

All right, I'm notice that Romans 4 5 teaches justification by faith alone

In that verse Paul mentions faith and works He negates works when you have two things and one is removed the other ones by itself

He says to the one who does not work but believes his faith is credited as righteousness

Since works is removed. We have faith that's left by itself It is alone. It is that faith that is counted for righteousness now incidentally when

James says that we're not justified by faith alone the Context that he's speaking of is justification before people and just and I've gone over this hundreds of times

I can discuss that at length James 2 18 you show me your works. I'll show you mine by or she your faith

I'll show you mine by my works and that's what is going on there Now Furthermore this faith which we are justified by is the faith that God grants us

The Eastern Orthodox Bible says in Philippians 129 for the sake of Christ You have been granted the privilege not only to believe in him

But also to suffer on his behalf the phrase have been granted is the aorist passive indicative

The aorist deals with past tense passive means they receive the action Indicative means that the action is a fact

Therefore our believing is granted to us by God Now I ask is this faith that is granted to us by God sufficient for justification.

Of course it is it comes from God That's why the Bible says in Romans 5 1 and it's remaining having therefore been justified by faith

If it is by faith that is not based on works that we've done in righteousness as Titus 3 5 clarifies

But EEO resources tell me that justification is accomplished at baptism and maintained through a life of obedience in confession of sins

The aorist in Romans 5 19 we have something that's really interesting because again the aorist passive Indicative occurs.

It says there Romans 5 19 indeed as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

The Greek phrase were made sinners is also the aorist passive indicative Which means that God is the one or it's me.

The action is performed by somebody else upon someone else And this is what's happening here

So the aorist means that the many were made sinners by Adams action by Adams sin

This is the imputation of Adam sin to us who are the many the Greek Orthodox Bible says

Romans 5 15 It says by the sin of the one the many died and in verse 18. It says

By the sin of the one the many died that was that was it Oh and through verse 18 as through one sin all men were condemned

So this is exactly what the imputation of Adam sin to us means therefore the imputation of sin is biblical

Sin is a transgression of the law of God first John 3 4 says sin is lawlessness Law deals with legality and sin is a legal problem though It's not only a legal problem, but we're only talking with the legal aspect imputation right now furthermore

Jesus equates sin with legal debt and he says Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name in Matthew 6 9 when he starts that Perry goes to verse 12

But he says forgive us our debts Ophelia ma in the parallel of a Luke 11 for he says forgive us our sins so Jesus equates sin with legal debt in Colossians 2 14 in the

Eastern Orthodox Bible says wiping out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us He has set it aside

Nailing it to the cross now the NASB. I love because it says having canceled out the certificate of debt

Now what is that certificate of debt? It's the Greek word Chiragra fun. It means a handwritten statement, especially a record of financial accounts

It's a handwritten IOU of legal indebtedness. I have several excellent quotes I can give you if you want to see this later on.

That's what it means So Jesus equated sin with legal debt. Remember he said our

Father heart and women who art in heaven. He said Forgive us our debts in Matthew 6 12, but in Luke 11 forces forgive us our sins

Jesus equates sin with legal debt the sin debt is what he is

He bore in his body in the cross After all sin is breaking the law of God first John 3 4

So when you break the law of God you have incurred a legal sin debt furthermore in first Peter 2 24 the

Greek Orthodox Bible says in his body in His body he bore in himself our sins on the tree.

So he bore our sins in his body How is it? That Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross if it is not by legal imputation where our sins becomes

His sins remember this is important sin is breaking the law of God first John 3 4

Jesus equates sin with legal debt. In fact on the cross when he was sacrificed. He says in John 19 30

It is finished which means that it's a legal statement of completed legal transaction

Because it's the Greek word to tell us die and it's been found on some ancient tax receipts signifying a legal debt has been paid in full

He said it is finished. It's paid. It's to tell us die. This is legal talk

Justification is legal imputation is legal propitiation is legal so as The Bible's not a minute

He bore our sins 2nd Corinthians 521 says that he was made sin on our behalf

So our sins were imputed to him and he died with him if my opponent disagrees and please explain how sin which is a legal debt according to Jesus How it's not born in his body in the cross, which is exactly what first Peter 2 24 says

That's exactly what we believe about imputation Furthermore furthermore when God grants that we believe like is 129 were justified by faith

Romans 5 1 we have a righteousness That's not our own is Not wrought through baptism sacraments theosis or obedience

Instead is a righteousness that comes from God Philippians 3 9 says in the Eastern Orthodox Bible and be found in him

Not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but through faith in Christ.

The righteousness was just from God by faith So the Bible teaches justification by faith alone through the righteousness that comes from God that is granted to us by faith alone

Amen Beautiful job

Prophet Google, I'm impressed and Matt phenomenal opening same time allotted to our brother combined

I used to pronounce it cabani. So forgive me like Coco Cabana. So it's cabane. All right now

Prophet Google is gonna time you for 10 minutes. You're doing excellent job, by the way prophet I just want to say some your voice is splendid.

You are meant for videos, honestly So glory to Jesus may God bless you. So you can your voice I'm gonna have to bring you more more often with me now

I'm gonna recede and then when he tells you begin you begin All right,

I want to thank Matt for agreeing to engage in this all -important discussion and I want to thank

Sam for hosting it I want to begin my argument tonight by quoting two passages from the letters of the Romans The first is

Romans 8 13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live and next

I'm gonna quote Romans 6 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time? But from the things of which you are now ashamed the end of those things is death but now that you have been set free from sin and it becomes slaves of God the fruit that you get leads to sanctification and its end eternal life

The Spirit thus joins us with Christ and it is in Christ whom we have new life and it is the life that is lived in Christ which leads intrinsically by its very character to Justification on the final day my argument tonight will turn entirely on the exegesis of Scripture Well, I don't affirm sola scriptura for the sake of argument

I will practice exegesis as if I did and I want to show by that principle that tradition genuinely is a clarifying

Instrument in the hand of God for helping us to see what the scriptures really say now foundational to my argument here is

The emphasis that my argument and my contest is not with a forensic or legal doctrine of justification

Forensic language after all is all over the Bible and it's especially present in reference to the doctrine of justification

But forensic language isn't self -interpreting it is with a particular Interpretation of what forensic language entails and the context within which it nests that I have a dispute

There are many different legal traditions and we cannot simply state that justification is legal

And assume that that explains itself Now crucial to my point here is the idea that justification and sanctification are coextensive with one another first Corinthians 611 says thou art justified thou art washed thou art sanctified

Into the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God now is sanctified and washed are Coextensive by implication the same must be true of justification.

But why is this the case? Well sanctification is language which is used with reference to holiness specifically ritual holiness that's why in the letter to the

Hebrews the word is used all the time because sanctification deals with Consecration in the house of God and what is the law court of God?

Well, the law court of God is nested it is situated within his throne room

And that throne room is the inner sanctuary of the temple. That's why when Isaiah is called as a prophet

He sees God sitting on his throne Surrounded by his counselors. This is the law court that we meet in the scriptures

The law court is that which is situated in the temple But why does faith justify it's my contention that Matt's position is actually not that we are justified by faith alone

In fact, his position is that we are not justified by faith at all The actual base for our justification according to Matt as I understand it is the imputed righteousness of Christ It is

Christ's active obedience Which is counted as ours and so God behaves with respect to us as if we had lived the life that Christ lived

Faith does not justify but it is an instrument by which that imputed righteousness is counted to us

But Hebrews 11 6 provides a very different picture of why faith

Justifies. Hebrews 11 6 says this without faith It is impossible to please God for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists

And that he rewards those who seek him Now the word reward here is the same word group as reward in Romans 4 and it comes from Genesis chapter 15 in Septuagint that word is mystos

And so we have here a different perspective on the same subject that is discussed in Romans chapter 4

Paul refers to creation ex nihilo in Hebrews 11 just as he does in Romans 4 and Abraham is again central in Hebrews 11 just as it is in Romans 4 a

Reward is not something that God is obligated to provide to us, but it is likewise not something which is disconnected from the life

Which we actually live rather the reward is given in response to a life that is lived

Well, but it is not an obligatory response. It is a gift Nevertheless, you might imagine if you do a good job cleaning your room your parents might take you to dinner

But that doesn't mean that they were obligated to do so it is a gift and yet it is connected with a life of good

Deeds good deeds, which are empowered by the Spirit and proceed from faith now that's a very important point as well because Matt said that if there are faith and works and works are excluded then by implication

We must be justified by faith alone. Now. The phrase faith alone is Can be interpreted in a legitimate way

But Matt also believes that we are justified by grace alone So someone who wanted to be difficult might say well, are we justified by five minutes remaining?

Are we justified by grace or are we justified by faith if they're both alone? The answer to that would be that they occupy a different position in the structure of justification

And I would say the same thing with respect to faith Works are not simply placed beside faith as if they both are in the same category

Rather faith is like the muscle which is empowered to lift the weight of salvation

Now works cannot be placed in the same place that faith is faith is the empowering principle behind it and works

Perfect and complete faith according to the power of the Spirit now very importantly for the

New Testament Christ is the paradigm of justification He is the justified one in order to demonstrate this take a look at first Timothy 3 verse 16 great

Indeed, we confess is the mystery of godliness. He was manifest in the flesh Justified by the Spirit seen by angels proclaimed among the nations believed on in the world taken up in glory similarly

Romans 1 3 to 4 concerning his son who is descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the

Son of God and that's has parallel with the justified by the Spirit in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead

Jesus Christ our Lord and so Jesus's justification is a legal reality

This is where God declares Jesus to have lived faithfully nevertheless that declaration occurs in and through an ontological

Transfiguration of his body such that because we are justified by union with Christ our forensic

Justification takes place by that very same Ontological principle now

Matt pointed out. I think accurately that sin is very often described in terms of debt But what is debt like the question of legal or forensic language?

It's not self -explanatory and my argument is that legal forensic and financial language does not have its own existence

Independent of the ontological that is the actual uncreated life of God which is communicated to us rather It is a way of explaining and exegeting the nature of that ontological

Reality, if you read the New Testament, you will find over and over again language of the riches of God's glory in the book of Revelation Jesus says

I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire And that's the basis for that language of buying and selling which is used throughout the rest of the book

Isaiah 55 does the same sort of thing speaks of buying bread without money Well, but what are the riches of God's glory and how do they make up debt?

Romans 1 22 23 says the following claiming to be wise they became fools and Exchange the glory of the immortal

God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles

You become what you worship the Israel when they worship the golden calf They become stiff -necked like the golden calf and when you worship that which does not have life in itself

You enter into the state of death you pass into that ontological state of corruption

In order to repair that rupture that separation from God We must be joined to Jesus Christ who is the incarnate

God and therefore has the glory of God intrinsically radiant from his person and Thus Romans 2 6 to 7 says he will render to each man according to his works to those who are

Impatient and well -doing seek for glory and honor that saw mate and immortality. He will give eternal life

Now some might say that this is just a hypothetical which is fulfilled by no man

But the problem with that is that in many texts throughout the New Testament. We are given examples of those who are

Justified on the final day one of them in Romans 2 13 and following itself.

Maybe we'll talk about that a bit later Glory is riches. That is how the language of God's uncreated life is described

Debt is a way of signifying our rupture from the divine life

We are supposed to be one thing in relation to one minute but we are actually something else in relation to God that difference is described as debt in Being joined to Christ by the

Spirit the divine Son who has all of the riches of divine glory intrinsically and from eternity

Everything that is lacking is made up It is no longer I who live Paul says but Christ who lives in me in Galatians 2 and in 1st

Corinthians 15 Not I but the grace of God which is in me There is not an intrinsic conflict between God and his creature because God is the intrinsic

Power behind every act of the creature and it is this rupture

Which is described as the record of debt and that is why the record of debt is canceled by union with he who is infinitely rich All our good works through the

Spirit are transmitted to God through the perfection of Jesus who lives in us such that we are not

In the flesh, but in the spirit, thank you time Wow man phenomenal job

Prophet Google and you debaters are doing great now. I'm gonna bring up Matt slick and he's got a 10 -minute rebuttal

But before I do that for the genius the Einstein who said let's spam the comment section

Please if you spam the comment section Then that means people can engage in serious discussion in the comment section

No, please do not spam the comment section. No personal attacks

No insults do not take any shots at the debaters They are

Christians who love to try on God and they discreet passionately let them do the debate You guys can debate passionately in the comment section.

No spamming and no personal attacks, please I already lost all my hair. I don't need to lose hair from my nostrils now that said

My brother Matt you coming up. I'm going in the back and profit. Let him know when he begins. He's got 10 minutes

Let's go Matt you're muted. You're muted No, I was gonna say

I think you can mute people in the discussion if they become obstreperous All right.

Okay. So here we go I'm glad that Cobain admitted there's a lot of forensic terminology dealing with salvation

No disrespect meant seriously, I know a lot of people will say no disrespect month and they are disrespectful

But I think that what's happening is that you're not properly dealing with the issue of that forensic terminology you're seeing it through a lens of your tradition when we talk about the issue of debt

Jesus himself as I quoted in Matthew 6 12 forgive us our debts in Luke 11 for forgive us our sins

Jesus specifically equates him with legal debt Now the word debt there is a feeling mom and the word sin is her martyred

Ophelia mom means a legal debt a legal debt. That's what it means And so you can look it up.

Please do so sin because sin is breaking the law of God first John 3 4 We have a legal problem.

And again, I'm not saying it's only a legal problem, but we're only focusing on that Aspect right now because of the issue of imputation justification so When we understand that sin is breaking the law of God and Jesus was made under the law

Galatians 4 4 made for a little while Lord in the April angels Hebrews 2 9 and he never sinned first Peter 2 24 because I mean first Peter 2 22 because he kept the law perfectly.

All right Yet our sin became his sin. Now. This is what it says in first Peter 2 24

He himself bore our sin in his body on the cross How is it possible for someone

Jesus to bear someone else's sin in his body? If it's not imputed, what does it mean specifically to bury his sin in his body now if?

Cobain and I go out to dinner. I say Cobain Look, I want to buy you dinner and I know we go out to a restaurant and I forget my wallet and he's cool guy

Here I'll pay for it. My debt is paid for by him It's transferred to him and in so doing that debt is canceled and it's removed the manager

The restaurant can't come up to me and go you owe that money. I know he paid it Legal debts are transferable now

Jesus. It's gonna be Paul The Apostle says in Colossians 2 13 having forgiven us all our transgressions verse 14

Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, which was hostile to us He took it out of the way having nailed to the cross

Certificate of debt is the Greek word care Agra fun It only occurs right there in the entire Bible and it means a handwritten

IOU of legal indebtedness Jesus canceled out that legal debt on the cross how?

By bearing our sin in sin imputed to him on the cross and thereby doing that He died with sin the wages in his death

He became since it continues 521 all this legality all this forensic terminology is perfect just as it says in Romans 4 1 through 5 it says what shall we say then that our father

Abraham according to the flesh is found for if Abraham was Justified by works. He has something to boast about but not before God for what is the scripture say?

Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness his

Belief is what was credited as righteousness not his theosis Maintaining positions participation in the sacraments through many years hoping to make it

No His faith was credited as righteousness and then in verse 4 to the one who did of it says if you work

Your wage is not credit as a favor, but what is due so Paul says that works and what's credited

They're due they're due to each other, but then he goes on he says but to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly his faith is

Credited as righteousness and there it is now in verse 3 of Romans 4 Paul says

Abraham was justified by faith It was credited to him as righteousness and he says the same thing.

It's past tense with Abraham and present tense with us Having therefore been justified by faith is why he goes on in Romans 5 1 to say having therefore been justified by faith

Because we are justified by faith apart from works now I'm not saying it's okay to be antinomian and and Say we're justified by faith and then we can go sin.

That's not the my position It's not the reform perspective anyone who says that just doesn't understand our relationship with regeneration sanctification

Justification imputation we could you know, I can clarify that if you're interested sometime in the future So we are changed creatures who seek to honor

God, but our sin is removed by Christ at the cross It's canceled at the cross not when you believe five minutes remaining

Thank you. Not when you believe not when you get baptized not when you take Communion not when you do good works notice what it says

He himself, excuse me. He canceled the certificate of debt Consisting of decrees which was hostile to what you took it out of the way having nailed it to the cross

That's what it says that he took it out of the way having nailed it to the cross now in the e o the e the eib eib the

Eastern Orthodox Bible it says Wiping out the handwriting of ordinances wiping out cancel getting rid of it the handwriting of ordinances handwriting

Kairagraphon is the Greek word care means hand and graph a means writing kairagraphon the handwriting of ordinances these

The debt certificate that we have by breaking the sin He took care of it at the cross and folks.

It's not removed when you believe you're justified When you believe it's different than the propitiatory sacrifice that cancels a sin debt

We're justified by faith Romans 5 1 and we're justified by the faith that God grants to us

Philippians 129 now remember I said in Romans 5 19 that it says that the many were made sinners

By Adam sin Were made is the aorist passive indicative and what that clearly says if you study

Greek is that the action of Adam sin? Resulted or was taken to or moved upon the people who were in him his descendants that they were made sinners

Which means we're born with sinful natures, which I know it's something EO denies, but that's what it's saying It says

Ephesians 2 3 whereby nature children of wrath So the aorist passive indicative means that the action of Adam sin is reckoned to us it happened to us

That's what it means is what exactly means the same aorist passive indicative structure is used in Philippians 1 29

And what says you have been granted belief God grants it to you Our believing is the work of God John 6 28 29.

We're born again. Not of our own. Will John 1 13 God does this? Now if this is true and it is and if it's the case that Jesus is the one who bore our sin in his body in The cross first Peter 2 24 and he cancelled the sin that at the cross then the

Eastern Orthodox position has got to deal with the text of Scripture Not tradition and church fathers and all of that.

We're not talking about that stuff here It's got to go with the Word of God. What about Romans 4 5 that says It says

To the one who does not work but believes his faith is credited as righteous now

Cobain said, you know faith is not some something that it alone like some substance Of course not it's used as a word to represent other things

But faith is only as good as who we put it in we say we're justified by faith We're not saying it's a material substance.

Now. He mentioned something about ontological essence I would love to have a discussion on the ontological essence relationship of the properties to the on toss

I would love that discussion. I mean get into that very deeply I have no problem with that and the issue of regularity and the transcendentals and all that that undergird it but for now

We say that we're justified by God's grace his unmerited favor It's not owed us in any way shape or form

But by his kindness why because from the foundation of the world he chose us in Christ Ephesians 1 4

He didn't choose us based on anything. He predestined us according to the counsel of his will Ephesians 1 11

This is all because in the inter trinitarian communion God is the one who ordained whichever shall come to pass

Ephesians 1 11 and In so doing the elect given by the father to the son for redemption

John 6 35 through 40 the elect that are given are the ones who Christ redeemed for He bore their sin in his body on the cross and he cancelled the sin debt at that cross

Which is why we're justified one minute We're not justified by faith anything we do and Jesus cancelled the sin that at the cross

That means his body bore our sin He bore us in in his body and cancelled the sin that at the cross.

How is that possible if? Imputation of our sin to to Christ is not the case

How is it possible that we are made sinners if Adam sin is not imputed to us? How is it possible that we're justified by things that we do

Along with our faith in Christ when the Bible says to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies you ungodly

His faith is credited as righteousness Our righteousness is by faith in Christ the sacrifice of Christ on his gracious movement alone and Jesus cancelled our sin that at the cross not when we believe but we're justified when we believe because God grants faith to those whom he has called and Predestined into the salvation work, which is from forever ago

Ephesians 1 4 to 11 time Wonderful on time at wonderful excellent and profit excellent job and keeping time and just let you guys know

You have my full permission to take this session Uploaded to your channels, obviously the debate of debaters.

This is their debate. They can do with it as they deem fit Now we're going to bring up Cobain for a 10 -minute rebuttal and then

Lord willing after that we're gonna go into the free -for -all between Matt and Cobain so Lord willing, let's bring him up and Prophet Google let him know when he's ready

All right.

Well, thank you Matt for that engagement I think the central point here has really not again with all respect been engaged and that is

Forensic language is not self -interpreting Matt framed my

Discussion of forensic language as an admission, but I'm not meeting the Protestant reform position halfway here rather.

I'm providing an alternative Constructive view of what forensic language in the scriptures is really all about and that's because scripture accumulates

Theology that is we have to go back to Genesis and work our way forward in order to understand what forensic language is all about After all forensic language is rooted in the law court, but not just any law court

It's the divine law court the divine law court, which is situated in the temple of God and that's why justification is coextensive with sanctification very often the

Protestant view of justification and sanctification and I Protestants are not antinomians and anybody who says they are simply does not know what he's talking about But Justification is often framed as something which is very distinct from sanctification

But scripture never speaks that way In fact, the only time that the two words are used together is in first Corinthians 611 where washed justified and sanctified are all presented together as mutually coextensive

I think another fundamental point which Matt asked is How is it that Jesus can bear our sins in his body if not by?

Imputation well scripture uses the language of bearing sin back in Leviticus For example

Leviticus 10 16 to 17 speaks of Aaron as bearing the sins of the congregation the sin or purification offering works by the priests consuming the sacrificial animal which is utilized for purification and The reason that that has something to do with what

Christ does in the New Testament It's because to bear our sins in his body on the tree

Does not refer to something Forensic wholly apart from the ontological that is wholly apart from what is actually true internally about his life in his quality of life

Instead when Christ takes the penalty of our sin, it means that Christ dies

What is a legal penalty well, it's not just any law we're talking about it's the

Torah It's the five books of the Pentateuch and we are given a very clear Exploration of what that legal penalty is in Deuteronomy 28 to 29.

It's to be made unfruitful It's to be cut off from the land It's to be made the tail and not the head and that goes back to Genesis 3 where Adam and Eve are

Exiled from the tree of life. That is the penalty. It's not something abstract

It's very concrete for Jesus to bear our sins in his body is to take the penalty of our sins and that penalty is death

Romans 5 operates upon this basis and Matt referred

Very substantially to Romans 5 How is it that the many were made sinners by the transgression of Adam now?

There are those Orthodox out there who are who have followed father John Rom Roman Edie's and denying original sin

But actually if you look at Orthodox confessions and catechisms going back through a thousand years of church history you'll find original sin affirmed and what that means is that Adams transgression caused a wound in human nature a wound which is

Transmitted through all generations because Adam is the head of the human family and the human family is a single corporate organism we're told that death reigned from Adam to Moses and that condemnation is reversed by justification of Life in context.

What is the condemnation that Paul was speaking of? Well, the condemnation is death It's a mistake to take the principal enemy in the

New Testament as eternal damnation Rather and I do believe I'm not a universalist I do believe in eternal damnation

But the way in which we can understand that conceptually is by understanding damnation with reference to death

Not the other way around That's why this penalty in Romans 5 is

Explicitly spoken of as death It's that exile which Adam received after his fall and because we participate in that one human nature

Which we received from Adam. We also receive that corruption of death

That's why if you look at the New Testament the use of the word flesh so many people say well What does

Paul mean by flesh and they go all over the place? But in fact, it's quite straightforward because the book of Leviticus uses flesh over a hundred times and the word in the

Septuagint is Exactly the same it's sarx and flesh in the scriptures refers to this

This impurity which corresponds with death if you have something associated with death in your flesh

For example leprosy is breaking out of your skin You cannot approach the sanctuary and this is the question which

Paul has to deal with in the letter to the Romans The question is how can we be restored to a right relationship with God when we are all born with this corruption of death?

Leviticus chapter 12, for example Speaks of impurity being transmitted in the flesh of those who are born born anew from their mother

And it's the glory of God which repairs that which had been Lacking because it's the glory of God which was lost when man went after that which was not

God all have sinned and lacked The glory of God or fall short of the glory of God and we receive that glory back when we are joined to Christ now

It's very interesting to me that Matt refers to Colossians chapter 2 and again, I agree that there is a record of debt which is canceled

The question is just what does that mean? And I think the record of debt refers to that rupture in relationship from between man and God This is why?

Debt is overcome by the riches of God's glory and it's that glory which is revealed in us in the resurrection of the dead

It's the glory of the father which raised Jesus from the dead in Romans chapter 6

So glory is not something which is imputed to us. It's not counted to us Holy apart from what has actually changed in us instead.

The glory of God is his quality of immortality Which is really and truly communicated to us when we are joined to Jesus Christ And it's because we are joined to Jesus Christ that all of our imperfections are made perfect and we can enter into the world to come

With him in Colossians 2 Matt referred a few times to baptism as that which is not relevant to justification

But look at what Colossians 2 11 says in him Also, you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of the flesh

There's that word flesh by the circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in baptism In which you are also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from the dead

Likewise in Romans 6 1 to 4 We hear that we are baptized into Jesus who was raised by the glory of the father and then in Romans 6 7 for one

Who has died has been justified from sin. Why is it that baptism is that which is the instrument of justification?

Well, it's because faith is Confidence in the spoken promise of God and God has said

I will meet you here I will meet you here and to have faith is to trust in that which has been unveiled in the name of the

Lord That is this character to do exactly what he has promised

And he has promised to do something in baptism. So we are justified by faith in Baptism and so Matt is again repeated the point that if Paul sets up faith and works and he excludes work

And then by implication we must be justified by faith alone But I think he ignored the most pertinent point that I made in my opening statement

Which was that where Matt holds that we are both justified by grace alone and faith alone

Well, how can you use alone of two different things? Well, that's not a hard question for the Protestant to answer It's because they occupy different positions in the structure of justification

And I would say the same thing with respect to faith and works faith and works are not on the same

Level as it were instead works proceed from faith and they are the perfecting cause of faith

So it is faith working through love which justifies us and that's also what

James says in James 2 He says for the as the body without the spirit is dead. So faith without works is dead

Well a body without a spirit is not non -existent. It's not a fake body. It's just a dead body It is a body which cannot move to realize the final cause of its existence

Second Corinthians 521 a very important passage and I think this gets to the heart of what our one minute remaining

Because both of us agree that there is a great exchange Both of us agree that Christ takes one thing and gives us something else

But the question is what is the mode of that exchange? Is it imputation that is is it something forensic?

Which is separated from an actual change made inside of us or is it ontological and I know that sounds like kind of a fancy word

But all it means in this context is something which is actually transformed in us by the Spirit Now if you look at first a second

Corinthians 5 to 6 You will see that Paul is explaining his own apostolic calling in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.

We are ambassadors of Christ God making his appeal for us for his sake He made him to be sin who knew no sin that in him we might become the righteousness of God Well, look at that phrase righteousness of God.

It goes back to Isaiah in righteousness I will send a word which will not return void. It is God's active

Agency his power in realizing his faithful promise to reconcile the world world to himself and the church

Becomes the faithfulness or the righteousness of God by being an instrument of his reconciliation

So it is an ontological transformation and not just a forensic imitation Okay, just introduce this segment and Prophet Google is gonna keep time.

I'm gonna bring up the debaters They agreed at least to 45 minutes when we get to the 45 minute mark,

I'll ask them if they want to continue This is where the debaters are going to now interact and have a live discussion and dialogue

I'm going to recede in the background. All you're gonna see is debaters because they are mature

Professional apologists, they don't need me or profit to interject and stop them. They'll be able to handle this conversation

They'll be able to talk to each other and ask questions and give responses without Talking over each other because they're professionals

Matt has been doing this for years He's debated quite often and you can see Cobain is also talented as a debater.

So brethren, I'm gonna bring you up Prophet Google is gonna text me when he comes around the 44 minute mark and then he's going to come up and say one minute

So when you get to the 45 minute mark you decide if you want to go another 15 minutes or you want to call it?

Quits, then you go into the closing statements five minutes each and then Q &A. So Lord willing.

Let me bring you guys up All right. I'm gonna recede. That means it's just gonna be YouTube. We'll be listening in the background

Lord. Bless you gentlemen Glorify Jesus Christ. Go ahead Matt.

You're muted again Matt. You're muted My wife would love to hear that Well, I got questions

Sure, but you said all right You said to bear our sins in his body was to take the penalty

So do you realize that to that the sin is different than a penalty Well to bear if you look at 2nd

Corinthians 5 you said sin is to miss the mark, right? Sin is to miss the mark.

That's one of the ways in which you can understand sin the opposite of sin in 2nd Corinthians 5 is

God's faithful unification of all things in Christ. And so Christ in every way has participated in that rupture

That was brought into the world through Adam sin And I guess my question for you would be how would you understand the notion of bearing sin in its

Old Testament context? How would you understand it? For example Leviticus 10. How is that related to what Paul talks about?

Jesus says in John 5 39 that you search the scriptures because in them you think you that They bear witness of me.

The Old Testament is typological in his representation of Christ all false religious systems that use the

Bible will take the Old Testament and submit the New Testament to it and it's that's wrong you always submit the

New Testament the Old Testament to the new because it cites what the Old Testament means and It's the one that clarifies the meaning so false religious systems in my 41 years experience

That's what they do. But you didn't answer my question See I asked you is death the same thing

As a pet was the word penalty the same thing as the word sin Are they the same thing because you said to bear our sins in his body is to take the penalty

But that's not what I was asking is sin also the same thing as penalty. I Would say that sin is that if you look at for example

Genesis 4 says sin is crouching at your door and this is in context used to explain the purification offering and I would

I would just disagree with you in terms of the way that you frame the relationship between the Old and New Testament we have to have an

Interpretation of the New Testament which makes sense of the Old Testament such that they are mutually Interpreting because we're told that Paul and the other

Apostles were in the synagogues proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah And these are not people who affirm the authority of the

Apostles in and of themselves But if we have a reading of the New Testament, which ends up making the Old Testament unintelligible in its own terms

Then it's very difficult to see how that could actually be the case So I agree, of course New Testament is authoritative with reference to the

Old Testament But they have to be in a constant dialogue with one another. So what does it mean to bear sin?

Is it exactly the same thing as penalty? Well, yes, and no Sin is that to which we are enslaved and that slavery to sin is

Manifest in a particular rupture that we have with respect to God and with respect to the world and Christ in every respect

Participates in that cutting off and thereby overcomes it and I think that's the only real way you can understand in 2nd

Corinthians 5 What it means for Christ to bear sin such that we can become the righteousness of God Yeah, I completely reject that Penalty is the effect of sin

God's penalty upon us for our sin when we sin we break the law of God That's what

I said. It was in 1st John 3 4 sin is lawlessness and Jesus equates sin with legal debt

And he did that in our Father who art in heaven Matthew 6 12 Luke 11 for respectively when he said Debt and sin so he relates sin and legal debts when you said to bear our sin that his body is to take the penalty

Now I grant that he took the penalty also, but it's not the same thing you mentioned earlier this issue of ontology and that's a word that I absolutely love and I would love to build discussed in a casual setting with you about this relationship because the on toss of sin and the on toss

Of penalty are different. They're not the same. And so when you said that It it took me back because it shows that you don't understand the difference and yet you can argue

Soteriologically here. Well sin is a stepping away from God sin is a movement away from that Which God has endowed us with sin is a movement away from the word

Which God has spoken to us as our standard of living and that movement away in its very nature

Brings about death as a consequence in that there's no possible world where sin being what it is

Does not produce death being what it is So the two are bound to each other in the sense that where one is the other will always exist

But they're not exactly identical and my point is that when we speak of Christ bearing the sin of his people we are speaking of Christ Participating in that movement away without himself

Willing what is not good? so when when Adam moved away from God this creates a rupture between the two and Christ participates in the experience of that rupture without thereby

Sacrificing his faithfulness, but my question to you would be Given that the Old Testament at the very least must be intelligible

If it's to be authoritative, what does it mean to you when we read in Leviticus 10 about Aaron bearing sin?

What does that what's going on there? You're muted.

You're muted Matt Matt. You're muted Yeah, I keep doing that because I cough and stuff to while you're talking.

I want to Want to be rude It I would have to what first of all

I'd like to do a study on that to see the whole context be able to Act more accurately Entertain the idea of what it might mean

But when I glance at it, basically just as I said before in John 539 It says that the scriptures are about him just as Abraham offered up Isaac It's a typological representation of a father and a son in the offering of the cross

Well, the all the propitiatory sacrifices are ultimately pointing ahead to Christ and all the priesthood points ahead to the

Melchizedek priesthood Which Christ himself? Maintains so when we say what does it mean that he did that?

Well, first of all, I'm not exactly sure I don't know the exact context. So without having looked at that in that context with that in mind

I can't give you a precise answer, but my general answer would be simply it's representative of the true sacrifice of Christ But it is not propitiate because you have

Leviticus 1911 says without the shedding of blood is no forgiveness of sins and it's given for the propitiatory sacrifice for the cleansing of sin

So we can't take that verse out of its context as the whole if the whole thing works together I know that you agree you still however

I still have more questions about the sin and the debt thing. So if we're ready to go with that I don't know if my answer to you is sufficient

But I got a lot of questions for you. Sure. Sure. I just with respect to the issue of death I would just wonder how it is that you ground your

Interpretation of what that debt entails because my view is that that as a word in the New Testament Signifies the separation between what we ought to be and what we actually are, you know

We ought to be something in relation to God We owe something in relation to God given our standing as creatures of God and our separation from that is spoken of as debt

But the term doesn't have its own set of reference apart from that ontological separation

The ontological separation that's it. Yeah when you say things like that You said sin is moving away from God.

There's no scripture that says that it's moving away from God It does say the Bible that sin is a transgression of the law of God now

You can change the meaning of that or the wording of that to kind of get the shape the same kind of idea

But when you do that you move from denotation to connotation Then you can take that connotative slip sliver later on and then get something else woven in there

Precision is what we need and when you ask me how I get contextual me or meanings of words context

I Just read the context of what it says For example in in Romans 4 or 5 to the one who does not work but believes his faith is credited as righteousness

I'm gonna say that faith for the righteousness is without works It's simple that's what it says

I don't have to have an authority to tell me what it means I don't need a counsel I don't need anybody. I just read what it says.

That's how come I know what sin is I read what Jesus said sin is The is is a legal debt

Jesus said so so but that's how I do it How do you do it? My problem is that when you say legal debt if you're saying we explain what sin is by saying it's legal debt

The words legal debt aren't self exegetical themselves in order to understand what debt is one would have to go into the whole context of the

Bible in the way that it frames the issue of death and my point is that when you look at the question Of debt and you look at the question of how the

New Testament and how the Old Testament use financial language Then financial language refers to the riches of God's glory

I advise you to buy from me gold without a gold refined by fire Isaiah 55 does the same thing as I mentioned and so we overcome

Our debt because Christ makes up that separation between us and God and you ask the question

Well, where does the scripture speak of sin as a moving away from God? I would say that it's found within that concept of transgression

It's a transgression of the law of God But if you look at Deuteronomy 4 and elsewhere the law of God has its significance as a revelation

Of God's inner character it is walking after God's own pattern of walking

Which makes the law what it is That's why the law is life because God himself has life in himself

And so that's the real question I think because on the one hand I'm saying this is what debt means given its overall scriptural context

You have to understand it in the framework of the temple and so on and so forth But you're saying this is what sin is sin means legal debt, but legal debt is left undefined

Why do you have the concept of legal debt that you do where is that based in Scripture? Oh Simple read the scriptures so the word of Philemon used by Jesus in Matthew 6 12 only occurs in one other place and that's in Romans 4 4 and the context there you should be familiar with it is

Romans 4 4 not the one who works as wages not credit as a favor, but what is due and so If if it's what is due

And it talks about works and wage. This is legality You enter into a contract and you say

I will do so much work for this wage. That's a legal contract Legality based on ultimately in the

Word of God and it's not credit as a favor But what is due and that is the word there of Philemon.

This is what he's talking about What is due the thing legally obligated by your wage?

So we know that God uses it in only two places and Jesus uses that word Specifically of what is due and what is obligated legal debt dot debtors.

That's how he uses it That's how Paul uses it. So would you agree that that it means a legal debt?

Or do you not know from the context what that is? That's not enough Well, I mean it does mean a legal debt

But the question is what kind of what concept of law are we working with when you refer to Romans 4 for example?

We're talking of course about Abraham we're talking about the reward which was promised to Abraham but Hebrews 11 uses that very same text and does so with respect to a

Fundamentally different exegesis of why faith is important I mean faith is necessary to draw near to God because Faith is the foundation for us pleasing

God because we trust by faith that he rewards those who seek him because that is what he Has promised it's not something which is owed to us as if you would be doing something wrong if he didn't give us something but that he is freely promised by his own righteousness to Respond in a certain way when we walk by faith and Genesis 15 if you hold that this is

Abraham's justification Which I think you do Genesis 15 is not the first time that Abraham is engaged in faith with God and this gets into the question of whether Justification is only something which we look it back upon or whether it's a state which is sustained and deepened through time

Hebrews 11 8 refers to Abraham's coming out from the land of his forefathers as an act of faith itself

And so faith if we want to use the phrase faith alone, and there are patristic writers who use the phrase faith alone

Faith alone is not intrinsically an Evil phrase it can be understood in a correct way

And that's why I think the resolution of this debate deals with imputation because faith being what it is

Cannot be replaced with anything else just as grace being what it is cannot be replaced with the position that faith has but faith

Significance the reason that faith brings us into the kingdom of God is because it is the power by which we draw near to God in working according to the

Holy Spirit and that working according to the Holy Spirit is Living in union with Christ.

It is Christ in us not something that we do by our own Natural powers and and I think that that exegesis of the text makes a great deal of sense and it makes more sense both of Romans 4 and of the connections between Romans 4

Hebrews 11 and Genesis 15 Well, you asked me you asked specifically you said what does legal debt mean?

So I went and I showed you the two occurrences of the word that Jesus used Ophelia mom

So I'm responding to your question and how I know that it's from the scriptures that we do that Now you said that bear to bear our sins in his body is to take the penalty now

You asked me. What is what does legal debt mean? I showed you this is specifically in an answer to your question

I'm asking for a specific question as big as specific answer Can you show me any place in Scripture where it says to bear our sins in his body means to take the penalty?

Instead of just bearing our sins Can you show me that in Scripture? well I'm not sure that I agree with the premise of your question because I asked you what does legal debt mean and the way that You responded to that was by quoting the two passages which use the word referring to legal debt

But yes, those two passages do use that word But that doesn't actually answer the question of what the conceptual essence of it is

And of course as you know debt as is a concept which is used in many places

Outside of those two texts where the specific word is used and so my point is that if you look at the context of Romans four to five because of course

I agree with you that This is a Holy Spirit inspired text if you look at the context of Romans four to five then it understands debt as Signifying the rupture between man and God and the way in which that debt is paid is through the reparation

Offering that is offered by the servant Isaiah 53 the way that debt is paid is by us being joined with Christ Who has in and of himself his glorious riches and that's what makes sense of the text from Romans 1

All the way to Romans 8 and following So I'm not sure that that just referring to the passages where the word debt is used actually

Explains what concept of debt or what concept of law one is working with? That's because you asked me biblically, what does it mean so I showed you biblically

Now we use the word debt to describe or define the word debt. We're gonna have a problem Contextually, which is why

I went to Romans 4 3 to show the legality that a debt deals with a relationship of law

And obligation and a contractual issue. I showed you that and you just just you know, you know

I know how it isn't a basement saying you dismissed it because you could forget to move on but I did answer your question

I did specifically give you a scriptural reference quoted the Greek showed you how many times it is where it was what it means right?

There in this context I did that but you have not done this the reciprocal

I've asked you to show me where it means to bear our sins in his body means to take the penalty

You've already admitted sin and penalty are not the same thing. The Bible says he took our a bore our sin

There to say bore our penalty that's Christus Victor know What we need is the scripture show me in the

Bible where it says You know, it says that verse it says that sin that he bore our sin his body means he took our penalty now

You know, like I said earlier, you know, if you don't know a contextual thing, you don't you know You work on it later get it back.

That's fine. If you don't know a verse like that Let me know because I certainly don't know one Well, I didn't say quite that sin is identical with penalty

But rather that the two always exists where the other exists such that they are coextensive and if you but if you want a passage

Which speaks of Christ taking our penalty? I would just point to Galatians 3 verse 10 or rely on the works of the

Torah under a curse and I agree This is the whole Torah. This is not just the ceremonial law I'll rely on the works of Torah under a curse where it is written cursed be everyone who does not abide by all the things

Written in the book of the Torah now the curse of the Torah refers to Deuteronomy 28 to 29

It's not the curse which is identical with the Torah as much as it is the curse which is prescribed in the

Torah That's the penalty for disobedience, but there's a reason why disobedience to the

Torah produces this kind of penalty It's because it is the natural consequence of a life that is lived badly

God's character is manifest in wisdom and to live unwisely is not going to in the end bring you pleasure and delight is going to bring you misery exile and death and that's what

That's the way in which Christ brings us redemption. It's not that Christ takes

Takes the consequence of our sin instead of us It's rather that he takes it with us so that we become that which are no longer objects of wrath so And just I know it's it's we keep returning back to this point

But I just have to disagree with you perhaps on a on a Philosophical level about what it means to explain what a concept is because sure we can quote plenty of passages

And that's important But there's quoting a passage does not tell you what the words mean in order to understand what the words mean

You have to provide an exegesis of the passage which unifies it with its context and its biblical background

If we don't do that, then we're just kind of throwing words around And anybody can do that And that's really my issue.

I agree with you that we have to do contextual studies If you go to my section on karma and annihilationism,

I've written over 180 articles on it and I did 30 40 50 I don't know how many Contextual studies on every occurrence of varying words and looking at them and putting them in context trying to draw meanings

Categorizing them outlining them. I'm very familiar with that context And so you're the one who initiated the the way to do this.

What does it say in the Bible? I am so glad you said that I went to the two places and that's what it says there and I gave you

Romans 4 3 or Romans 4 4 which tells us Exactly how it's to be used.

That's how God uses it now granted Sometimes context doesn't give us a very good meaning and we have to go to extra biblical things and I have no problem with that but If you want to discuss sometime the ontological nature of abstract concepts and universals

Oh, man, let's let's get in and we can talk about those such such things and now God is a necessary preconditions for this stuff

I have no problem with that. You want to talk about on toss? No sweat I love those kind of discussions are quite familiar with them

But you're what you're doing is you're confusing the on toss an abstract on toss with the effect

You're confusing the properties with the element. So here's what your mistake is You're saying that he bore our sin his body means he bore the penalty sin is the ontological issue

It's an universal abstraction breaking the law of God who's a necessary precondition for intelligibility We are the ones who break his law.

He's the universal mind the universal being the universal God Therefore we have broken his law the penalty of doing that is certain things separation from God Isaiah 59 to what is in his death

Romans 6 23 So what you've done is you've mixed the effect with the the actuality of that abstraction

It's a mistake on your part and you've defended it several times and to do this is a failure on your part

No disrespect men Exegetically because what you're trying to do is is force into the text something is not saying

I'm at simply asking you Where's it say what you say and you still haven't come up with a verse on that and we haven't even gotten really to a cross

Examination and Colossians 2 14 which is what I want to get into also well,

I mean, I think first of all, I did not say that sin and Penalty are identical in a one -to -one sense rather I said that they are coextensive with one another and if if you want a verse which speaks of Christ taking the penalty

I would just refer back to Galatians 3 10 Which I've already referred to Christ takes the curse of the

Torah the curse of the law, which is Deuteronomy 20 29 exile and death and then I would say that if one wants to understand what it means for Christ to bear the penalty and by The way,

I don't see a reason why we should assume that bearing Our sins in his body on the tree, even if I were wrong means what you mean by imputation

I don't think that's the only other alternative, but even if one were to say that I would say 2nd Corinthians 5

Speaks of what I'm speaking of because the righteousness which we have the righteousness which is given to us through Christ Is the reverse of the penalty?

So if a penalty is that which we get for disobedience then righteousness justification reward is that which we get for obedience?

and Christ takes the sin he bears our sin because he participates in every respect with the

The departure that we have had from God He participates in his cutting off from God from man and from the world

And he also takes the penalty for that sin because he tastes death for all according to the letter to the

Hebrews But these these two things in virtue of what they are always have to go together with each other

But I would just say that the fundamental issue is that which is talked about in Romans 5 if condemnation

Which is the opposite of justification. Let me know if you disagree with that But if condemnation is death then justification is resurrection

It's the justification of life and when I say ontological I'm perhaps it's it's it's to it's a misleading word to use in this context

But it's the one I've always used when I say ontological I mean that it refers to an internal transformation to say that we are reckoned as righteous by faith

Is not to say that some other righteousness is imputed to us It is rather to say that God recognizes us as being what he has

Recreated us to be and to go finally to Romans 4 and to ask the question what actually makes sense in context

I would say that it makes very little sense to argue that what Paul is talking about is Abraham's one -time justification in Genesis 15 because if just we're justified by faith and where true faith is we will always be justified then

Abraham couldn't have had faith in Genesis 12, which Paul says he did in Hebrews 11 8 And also if we look at the question of what debt and gift is, you know

We are it's not according to debt, but according to grace or according to gift then a gift is not something which is given

Totally irrespective of our behavior it is rather given in response to behavior empowered by the

Spirit. So Though with the one Pardon me. I know I've gone on a little long the paradigm that I would use would be like in Deuteronomy Deuteronomy is all about the gift of God the gift of The land

Israel you see the use of grace language in Deuteronomy 7 Which I think is used in Ephesians 1 but the language of gift is not used to exclude

Israel's active response. It is rather that Israel has to actively apprehend and Actively possess that which is given because it has been given by grace

And so I don't think the two are in opposition to one another. I think the two have to go together

Well, I agree Even I could have some really good conversations on this and work out some some details but To quote you exactly to bear our sin in this body is to take the penalty and I'm not sure if you're familiar with abstractions the ontological relationship of abstractions to as objects and And so the reason

I'm bringing this up is because you're getting into that kind of a thing when I've read Eastern Orthodox stuff I've noticed that this is what the kind of thing they do, but they don't go very far.

It's the ontological You said from I hope I'm not misrepresenting you because you're speaking fast

I'm trying to type so if I do just correct me, but Ontological means an internal transfiguration.

That's what you said, but that's not the case When we talk about the nature of sin sin is an abstraction it occurs in the person.

It doesn't occur under rocks It's an abstraction since it's a moral violation and morals are abstractions and sin is not found under a rock

We can't take pictures of it. It occurs in the heart and in the mind. So it's an abstraction that occurs here

You know are here that that part of the Bible God talks about us, you know, if I were to slap you is that sin or not sin?

Well, it's not a sin if I'm trying to save you from that super venomous spider But it is a sin if I just don't like your haircut, which incidentally isn't need some help

But you know, so the motivation is the issue here and that's where the sin becomes a reality

It's an abstraction legal debts are also abstractions That's why we write representative numbers on papers that represent an abstract concept

So when Jesus bore our sin, this is a critical issue that deals with imputation If he bears our sin, it's an abstract concept

That is in relationship to God because he violated his law, which is a reflection of his character.

It's a codification of his character Therefore it's a legal debt, which I showed you out of Romans 4 for showing you how it's accrediting which deals with legality

Jesus equates him with legal debt. That's what he does. And so therefore he bore our sin in his body

Necessitates imputation and when you say that to bear our sins in his body is to take the penalty you are

Ignoring missing whatever the right word is this issue of the on toss related to the abstract concepts of what it is

The reason I'm talking this level is you brought this stuff up and I'm just going with it So legal desert or abstractions that are transferable as his sin, which is a breaking the law of God is that not imputation

Isn't it? Well, I don't agree with the way that you frame the issue on that level when

I say ontological and of course You know words don't have an intrinsic meaning their meanings change through time.

So when I say ontological I'm fundamentally referring to what might be more traditionally referred to as an infused quality

So in the quality which God creates inside of us but if you look at the context of when Peter says he bore our sins in his body on the tree says he himself bore our sins in his body on The tree that we might die to sin and live to righteousness by his wounds

You have been healed and this question of healing. This is not an imputation at all

Rather healing is something which is done inside of us We are recreated such that we are disposed to life rather than tending towards death and the context

Which he's referring to goes back to Isaiah 53 which speaks of the servant healing our wounds because he takes our wounds

He was stricken for our transgressions that goes back to the language in Leviticus about leprosy and that in turn refers back to Isaiah 1 where it says the whole body is sick from that crown of the head to the sole of The foot and so this underscores my point which is really about the nature of legal language

I mean we can speak and agree that there's lots of legal language We can't understand it without legal language

But legal language has a referent and I don't agree with what you're saying The referent is

I say that legal language is a way of expositing or exegeting This language about a healing about transfiguration.

And again, you said that I said To bear sin in his body and to take the penalty are the same thing

I didn't say they were exactly the same thing I said that they are coextensive with one another such that sin will always produce death because of what both of these things are and If you just look at Romans 1 to 8 and elsewhere in the

New Testament The way in which we are justified and I think this is really at the heart of our debate the way in which we are

Justified has to be understood according to the pattern of Christ's justification and Christ was justified

He was declared to be righteous by the Spirit in the resurrection of his body

And so our justification is forensic, but it's a forensic justification

Which is recreated and remapped around the way in which Christ was forensically justified. That is it's an internal transformation

It is a participation in the glory of God. So that which you I think would say is sanctification not justification

I would say is also Elucidated by the language of justification and that to be accredited as righteous does not mean

Christ righteousness has been imputed to us. I mean, that's not what Paul says He says our faith is credited as righteousness Not that and if you want to say that shorthand for Christ's righteousness is imputed to us one could say that but that's not there

In the text one would have to argue it on another basis when we say that faith is credited to us as righteousness

The reason that faith is credited to us as righteousness the reason that brings us into the world to come has already been explained in Hebrews 11 and elsewhere it is faith which works through love and faith is the only thing

Which can give birth to genuine love and it's that which brings us in to the world to come It's that which apprehends and secures the promise

And if Christ is justified from this by the Spirit not according to the flesh We're justified by union with Christ.

Then the one has to apply to the other Whew so much to cover.

I don't want to harp on 1st Peter 2 24 too much Well already have

I think it's very significant, but you I was ready to go to Colossians 2 14 Which I'm getting my opening statement, but you said a couple things

But It's so fast. It's harder to keep the context what you say again, if I misrepresent you just please correct me

I don't I don't intend to do that at all But the resurrection of Christ before God the Father and before us is a justification it does not mean any in forensic sense

That's a different sense in justification of Romans 4 because it's justification before God here the justification that is talked about there with Christ's resurrection is that the resurrection is the proof of the acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ before the

Father because without and without that 1st Corinthians 15 our faith is in vain But you said something interesting.

I thought it was interesting The reason faith is accounted as righteousness is that faith is is is that which is working through love, right?

faith is accounted as righteousness faith is as Necessary for us to enter into the world to come because it's the power by which we can produce genuine love by the

Spirit I'm not sure. I understand that well Basically if we understand salvation to be like a weight, okay

So this analogy doesn't apply in every sense But I think it's a useful one if salvation is a weight Then faith is like the muscle which lifts the weight the

Holy Spirit is the energy which it enables us to actually utilize our muscle And good works or love is the utilization by the spirit of the muscle to actually lift the weight

So faith and works are not fungible if you try to replace one with the other you're gonna get into trying to indebt

God to do something which would be horrific and and pointless But they have a specific relationship

Such that works Perfect faith and bring it to its goal such that it's like the body in the spirit the body without the spirit is a real

Body, but it's just useless. It doesn't achieve its end When you say working through love, what do you mean by that?

What do I mean by faith working through love? Mm -hmm Well, it's when you trust that God will do what he has promised and you actively

Utilize that trust by the grace of the Holy Spirit to embrace others and love to enter into the life of Christ That's what brings us into the world to come and I think the basis for this in Galatians And this would be a whole other debate is we live by the faithfulness of the

Son of God Who loved me and gave himself for me? And so we live by that we live both in terms of a pattern of life and actually living rather than dying

We live by the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me and so that which brings us into the world to come is the very thing which brought

Christ into the world to come because it's Participation in his pattern of life. It's becoming like Christ in Christ through the

Spirit And that's what it means to live by faith and for faith to work through love such that we walk with this

We walk with God we walk by the Spirit and that is what brings the blessings of the new covenant so working through love includes

Embracing others with love. That's what you said embrace embrace others with love, right? The fruit of the Spirit fruits of the

Spirit incidentally, this is a trivia thing for you in Galatians 522 The Greek word is carpas singular.

It's not fruits, which is carpoi singular just trivia. Just just trivia. It's fun

So Romans 3 28 says we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law

Now the law is summarized by Jesus in Matthew 22 37 and 39 when he says love

God love your neighbor Which is quoting Leviticus. It's gonna be do it on me 6 5 and Leviticus 19 18 respectively

And he says there's a summary situation of the law Would you then say that the justification that we have this before God by faith?

We maintain that a man is justified before God by faith Apart from the works of the law that it would also be apart from loving

God and loving your neighbor I would say as Paul says in Galatians 6 to bear one another's burdens and so fulfilled the law of Christ The way that we fulfill the law of Christ is not by our own natural powers

But it's because Christ lives in us such that we can truly say not I but the grace of God which is in me and I think if you look at the context of Romans 322 the issue here in Romans 3 1 2 8 is that Israel has been unfaithful to the

Commission which was entrusted to it and God has nevertheless been vindicated as faithful and so the faithlessness of Israel and the faithfulness of God are

United in one person by the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah for all who are faithful And that is the way in which we are restored to the communion of the glory of God Because we have entered into the faithfulness of Jesus meaning we've been crucified and resurrected from him

So what does it mean to say that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Torah? It means that we are justified by the faithfulness of Jesus Because if Jesus had not done what he did in perfection there would be no way in which the

Infinite debt could be overcome that infinite gap could never have been bridged and so we're justified by the faithfulness of Jesus because we cannot in virtue of Not only who we are as fallen creatures, but in virtue of who we are as creatures

We cannot fulfill the law of God without God It's God from beginning to end who fulfills law in us and I just want to say

I agree with you By the way, the faith is a gift that faith is something that we receive from God It's not 50 -50 it's a hundred a hundred the

Holy Spirit empowers us to be what he created us to be you said

What you said in context of Romans 328 And you went to Galatians 6 to bear one another's burdens

That's not Romans 328 When I debate people when I have discussions with them and ask them a specific question about a verse and the first thing they do

Is go someplace else it automatically causes me to go Why aren't you just looking at the verse in the context of what it says first because that's what

I like to do Where then is boasting it is excluded by what kind of law or work of works?

No but by a law of faith For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law or is he the

God of the God of? The Jews only no the Gentiles also. Yes, and we can really go through a lot of this whole context, but The law

Jesus said is summarized in love God love your neighbor So we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law

You said that working through love is how we're justified. I forgot which the context and how you said it.

Sorry but when I was I clued in on the issue that working through love means to embrace others with love and that's how we're justified and But the

Bible says the opposite of that in Galatians 3 28 apart from the works of the law We're justified which necessarily includes loving

God loving your neighbor and you said but it does mean loving your neighbor. So Can you explain that difficulty?

Yeah I would say first of all the reason that I went to Galatians 6 2 to begin with and I then went to the context

Of Romans 3 is because scripture is perfectly consistent with itself. It's in the inerrant Word of God and so we do there is a place for going to a text which talks about the same thing in order to establish a

Boundary because we if we interpret one text in such a way that it contradicts another text we know that we've interpreted it falsely and so if one says that there's no way to fulfill the law of God as a

Christian then One has interpreted the text falsely because Paul says that there is a way to fulfill the law

But the way in which we fulfill the law is not by funging Faith and works in the sense of the word fungible.

We can't replace faith with works. It's rather that faith occupies a position which is a disposition a motive relationship to God and it's within that confidence of God in God that we

Bring forth works of charity So we have to keep faith where it is and keep grace where it is and then keep works as that which proceeds

From faith and that's what I think really unifies the New Testament and helps explain how it doesn't contradict itself because we are justified by The faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who are faithful so that which is the faithfulness of Jesus determines the shape of the faith which gives us justification and we see that in Romans 4 where Abraham's faith is

Distinguished as Christ -like faith because he was confident that God would bring life out of his already dead body

And so we are justified by faith in the one who raised Jesus from the dead and that I think gives the

New Testament a unity that would not be Explicable if we just took these texts in isolation from each other

We don't take them from isolation from each other. That's never something I would do I teach on hermeneutics and how to interpret scripture

One of the rules you want to do in hermeneutics is to read something in this context first not jump to another verse automatically we certainly don't want to commit what's called the illegitimate totality transfer where a word has a scope of meaning or a semantic domain and we pick different meanings from different places and put

In here because we have a contextual idea that we want it to fit. We don't want to do that either We you asked me earlier

Ophelia ma I showed you where the worst of the worst were in the context right then and there was reading it

I like to do that. I think is what we should do. I don't think you've in my opinion. You've not satisfactorily Answered Romans 328 which says that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law

Which is summarized and love God and love your neighbor. It's not our works loving Is not is is something that we should do we should do that But it's not good enough to make us right before God or keep us right before God It just isn't because we're involved with it, but there's so much that you mentioned about baptism and I got question about faith and baptism

But unless you want to ask me something else, can I we jump to Colossians 2 14? Let's you know

Sure, sure And I think we have like four minutes and 20 seconds left on the 45 minute time

But do you want to extend it for the full hour? I'll go So Give me let me just let profit

Google you want to go another 15 minutes you guys want to take a minute break No, can

I use a restroom? I did an hour to treadmill a day.

I'm thirsty. I'll be like two minutes. All right Take two minutes if you want to go do something

Okay, folks. Sorry. I had to sit on the couch because if I sit on a hard chair, it messes up my back

I'm not as young as Matt or combined. I'm an old guy. I'm a boomer I finally now realize what a boomer is and a profit they're gonna go to the hour one hour mark

So that means not 45 minutes. You can stop it and then

Give them about 17 more minutes and if they want to go more that's up to them. It's up to them.

Totally. I'm just here Just facilitating guys after this you can ask questions

Q &A We're gonna open up Q &A, but again, I'm gonna have to repeat I know Emotions are high

Everyone believes the other church has false teaching or it's a false church.

Do me a favor guys, please don't attack each other just Even if you think for example, if you're

Orthodox and you think the Catholic Church is falling away, okay, that's fine But don't attack and the

Catholics if you do the same thing don't attack in the comment section And if you think Protestantism is a heresy or if Protestants think everyone else keep that to yourselves don't attack in the comment section

You can ask tough questions. You can even ask questions to challenge the other position

Don't make it personal and don't demonize the other traditions. You guys know where I stand in my channel

Catholic Orthodox Coptic Church Sir interests these Protestant Trinitarian evangelicals are welcome here.

I love them as my brother's sisters in Christ. You may think I'm wrong. That's okay Or I'm a heretic and Matt six is gonna school me and put me in my place on his channel

But anyway, do not attack each other personally, please. I got mods that are

Orthodox. I got mods that are Catholic I got mods that are Protestants. Keep it respectful

You can disagree Passionately don't attack each other So now that said when Caban comes back on I used to call him

Cabani But I guess it's Caban you guys want to go up to our profit Google when we get around the 59 minute mark

Let me know and we'll tell them one minute and if they want to continue they can that's up to them I'm just facilitating now get your questions ready.

Lord willing. I'm gonna recede in the background there So are we starting up again?

Yeah, I guess we are You start timing, you know, go all right go, okay

Okay, so I just want to wrap up one thing on Romans 1 to 3 I mean, of course a whole debate could be had on any of these texts

Which is one of the issues and I'd be happy to do that with just focusing in on one specific text sometime

But with respect to Romans 1 to 3, what does it mean to be justified by faith apart from the works of the

Torah? Well, the question is who is the working one here? Who is the one who is working in us to facilitate our salvation or our justification our inheritance of the world to come?

It is the faithfulness of Jesus who is living in us who is actively Working in us such that is not

I but the grace of God who is in me. He's the one who is working so we can Say it's not me.

I'm not working. It's Jesus in me was working. How is it that that union is accomplished?

It's by faith because faith is disposition of relation to the Father which is proper to Sonship, it's a personal relationship rather than a kind of business corporate relationship.

It's one which isn't about debt It's one which is about gift. And so that I think is the crucial point

We're justified by the faithfulness of Jesus for all who are faithful meaning that it's him who is working in us

To bring about our inheritance of the world to come and I think that that really explains a great deal the

Biblical text such that we don't have to Go outside the boundaries of something like Galatians 6 to which says we fulfill the law or Romans 2 which says that we

That there are those who fulfill the law of God in a significant sense But with that said let's go to Colossians 2.

Yeah, but real quickly we need to talk about this I'd like to talk with you on the phone sometime not in a debate context just a conversation if you're open to doing that But you said he's one working in me.

Not me. That's logically problematic. You have to study I don't know if you're familiar with the ultimate proximate and efficient causation when it deals with culpability

Because then that if you're not doing anything then you can't be held accredited or anything about it But that's another discussion that our time.

I think just wording is the issue here Colossians 2 14. What does it mean? You know, he canceled the certificate of debt

The certificate of debt. I've done a lot of research on this one of my favorite verses I like to say I would marry that verse if I could

Colossians 2 14 is the Chirographon the certificate of debt. It's a hop ex legomena

It only occurs once right there and I've done research on the words from lexicons and handwritten

IOU of legal indebtedness. It's a legal contract. That's what it means. That's how it's used and that's what it means

I can give you the references for that if you're interested So and I think you said earlier that the sin debt was canceled you agree that that's a sin debt, right?

Am I correct? I Mean depends on it depends on what you mean by that But yeah in itself,

I would agree the legal sin debt that we've our debts to God Because we broke his law

So if I insult you Unrighteously, you know, I need to come to you and say today man.

I'm sorry, you know, I offended you and Hopefully you're cool guy. Yes, of course But if if we, you know break

God's law, he's the one who forgives us So our debts to him he broke his law, right?

Okay. So then when Jesus canceled the Certificate of debt you said it's a sin debt.

It's our law dead against God Are the consequences and all of that that goes in right? Right, but there there is a kind of context to That concept where I think our disagreement will be found but but but go on Okay, and it was done at the cross not when you believe not when you get baptized not when you sacraments and not

Throughout your life, correct? Yes in that What is done at the cross is appropriated in our justification, but it's a definitive accomplishment at the cross where he puts to death the flesh

So the sin debt was canceled at the cross, right? Depending on what you mean by that, but of course,

I mean Explained it that we we sin against God since breaking the law of God first John 3 for we sin against God.

That's his law He has to be the one who forgives he becomes one of us In the incarnation fulfills the law perfectly never sins dies on the cross

There's all that's necessary legally and I have a whole thing study on that's one of it memorized I have a whole study on the legality of his necessity on the cross

So he canceled that sin debt this the debt of sin against God. He canceled it at the cross right

Yes, but I would say that the meaning of debt what debt signifies is that separation that the human family has with respect to God Which means that human the human family tends towards corruption and death and because Christ has been crucified and put to death the flesh

And then being resurrected he facilitates the resurrection of all human beings from the dead. I Know of no place where debt means separation

You can if you can demonstrate that at a scripture. I'd like to see that nevertheless The sin debt is canceled at the cross

Not when you believe is that correct? Well when I say the debt is signify separation

I'm not saying that the word itself specifically signifies that but rather that when we understand the way in which debt

Corresponds to the riches of God's glory. It is understood in that sense so when we say that that is a separation between what one is or what one owes and One actually has the separation between those two values is a debt and because what we are what we ought to have what we owe is

Infinite because God is infinite so to be separated from him even slightly is an infinite debt The way in which that rupture is overcome is for Christ to make reparation

Because he being God has the riches of divine glory so that when we are joined with him

We receive the key to that Treasury and thus the debt is overcome We participate in the riches of divine glory so that when

Paul in 2nd Corinthians 8 9 Paul says He who was rich became poor for our sake so that we by his poverty might become rich when we read

Colossians 2 11 and following Actually, let's to to 9 and following in him

The whole form was a deity dwells bodily in him you and you have been filled in him who is the head of all one authority?

We're circumcised at the circumcision made without hands We are this occurs by the circumcision of Christ the cutting off of the flesh and that occurs in having endured with him in baptism in which you are also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God written in dead and You who were dead in your trespasses in the uncircumcision of your flesh

God made alive Together with him having forgiven us all our trespasses by canceling the record of debt.

So each of these phrases Explains the preceding phrase and that's why I think it's very difficult to justify to justify in epistemological sense to give grounds for a strict separation between What God does in us what he creates in us the actual changes he brings about in us which you call sanctification and justification

I would say the two dwell in one another you can't have one without the other and Even even in principle

And so, of course, I agree that There is a record of debt the New Testament says that record of debt is canceled in Christ But the way in which it is canceled is by Christ taking in taking into himself the

Human nature and because it is humanity which owes God this infinite debt

Christ in becoming a human being Gives mankind the riches of his glory such that we can appropriate those onto the reparation of that death

That's how I would understand it. Wow. He said please correct me if I'm mistyping

Miss quoting you he said you said the record of debt was canceled at the cross and it was canceled by him taking human nature

Is that what you said? Yeah by tasting death for all Christ overcomes the rupture which was signified in the language of debt so mankind separation from God is

Manifest in our tending towards non -existence meaning our tendency towards corruption and so forth and Christ Being intrinsically and you know, there's no

Christ who is not a divine person Christ having being who he is the riches of divine glory in entering into that reality makes reparation

He overcomes the separation by paying what mankind owes

So it's just it's kind of like the language of marriage if a wife enters into a relationship

Owing a significant amount of money and then the husband and the wife they join their bank accounts. Well, then

Her debts become his and if he's a multi trillionaire He pays off all of her debts because of the union that they have and that's how

I would understand Debt in relation to Christ's union with the human family well,

I could so many avenues To discuss this. Can you tell me exactly what was canceled?

I thought you said it was the the debt of sin to God Do you agree that that is what was canceled at the cross the debt of sin to God because he overcomes the separation

Okay, and so at the cross not when you get baptized not when you communion, right?

That's not when you believe even right I Would need to know where exactly you're going with it in order to give

I think a Text says and I've said this before we're justified when we believe but since the sin that's canceled by cross by cross

By Christ at the cross. He did that 2 ,000 years ago. It's what it says He canceled the certificate of debt having nailed it to the cross

It was irrelevant whether you and I accept it or believe it or not The legal debt is canceled then not when you and I believe or do anything.

That's what it happened 2 ,000 years ago That's what it says now we're justified later But the canceling of that sin debt what you said is the debt of sin to God you said that Okay, so that's canceled at the cross.

That's what it says, right? Yeah, Christ takes on human nature He participates in death and thereby he overcomes the separation from man and God which is why all human beings are

Resurrected from the dead and I think that might be a key point in terms of where you're going No So if you you know, if you can't listen that for it for did he do it for everybody who ever lived

And what I'm talking about when I say that this facilitates the resurrection from the dead is that Christ?

communicates the riches of divine glory to human nature which all human beings share and Thus all human beings are resurrected from the dead

But what that means for the one who is stringently opposed to God on the final day

Is that the division between who they are by nature, which is you can't decide not to be the image of God It's just who you are.

God is sovereign to make you a human creature if You are stringently opposed to God your nature and your will are eternally opposed to one another and I think that is why

Damnation is called the second death because death if you the image that is most often used with reference to death is separation

It's a division. It's a cutting in two separation of soul and body is death That is the context within which

I would explain Colossians chapter 2, but I guess what I would ask you is Given how you interpret the definitive nature of Christ's cancelling of our debt

Do you believe that the person who was not yet justified but it was one of the elect Do you believe that he is under God's wrath prior to his justification?

And if so, how can he be under God's wrath if Christ has already canceled his debt? Are you familiar with the now and the not yet in theological discourse?

Yes, that's the answer then Because for those who don't know we're we're glorified in Romans 8 20 or 8 29 and 30

But we're not yet glorified as spoken of in the past tenets So there's a now and the not yet just as Jesus bore our sin in his body on the cross

That's that was now for him but not yet for us because we hadn't even sinned yet So this concept is right there and that's it.

That's where I would go with that. It's not a big deal It's it's common knowledge in theological circles Well precisely so and that's what

I would say in response to what I took to be your argument in relation to Colossians 2

There's a distinction between the definitive accomplishment of Christ and the appropriation of that accomplishment by the people of God How's the appropriation done?

Well, the appropriation is done by active union with Christ the spirit joins the person to Christ So the sin that was canceled, but it's not effective until you are joined with Christ Well, that's what you would have to suggest as well because you said that So what is it that that distinguishes?

Why is the person whose debt has already been canceled? why are they under God's wrath if God's wrath is

Effective because someone owes an unpaid debt if sin is seen Sorry We would say what they're seen as being under that are functionally under the wrath of God But judicially they will not be that now they're not yet.

We can get into that. It's a reform perspective issue We can get into quite a bit But the thing I'm trying to get to you is

I'll get from you is the sin that was canceled at the cross My question is what did he do it for everybody in principle?

I mean, but even this is the thing if you say that this is explained in terms of the now and the not yet then the reason that I bring this up is because I think the logic of your argument will lead inexorably to eternal justification if It is wrong for someone to be under the wrath of God if their debts have already been canceled definitively on the cross

Then the elect by implication cannot be under the wrath of God if they have not yet been justified

So one might say that their justification has been accomplished, but it's not yet manifest but I don't think that there's a way for you to make that double jeopardy argument, which

I think is the argument that you're making and Simultaneously avoid the question of eternal justification

If you look just at any of the sacrificial logic of the Old Testament There is a distinction between the sacrifice and the application of the blood of the sacrifice

There's a distinction between accomplishment and personal appropriation Election and predestination which

I Thoroughly enjoy and teach and debate quite a bit Are accomplished before the universe is even made

Ephesians 1 for he chose us in him before the foundation of the world and verse 5 He predestined us etc.

These are the more issues than now and the not yet. This is a deep topic and We if you want to have a discussion on it sometime we can but it will necessitate me getting into Election and predestination as well as the imputation of our sin to Christ Because he did that on the cross when we were not yet born.

It's the now and the not yet my question to you here is I Didn't know if I got a straight answer.

Did Jesus cancel the sin debt for everyone who lived? Well, it just depends on what you mean by that and I know that that that sounds kind of like, you know

One is dancing around the question, but every one of these words can be debated and disputed so the way

I would say that Jesus Cancels the debt for everyone who has lived is that the debt is manifest in the sentence of death

Which is passed on all mankind and every every human being without exception will be resurrected from the dead

So they are their debts are canceled and their debts aren't canceled if they don't appropriate that if you don't go and cash the check

Well, then it's as if your debt hasn't been canceled in the first place But if somebody writes you a check they have the money to pay it out

Well, then you can say legitimately and truly they have canceled your debt they have paid for your debt

But if you don't cash it, it's not effective for you so that distinction between Appropriation and accomplishment is a distinction which

I think you have to make to be internally consistent and that's the distinction which I would appeal to You are just incorrect.

I'm sorry But you are if someone I have a mortgage in my house if someone goes and pays my debt pays off the mortgage

It's not real. It doesn't matter if I accept it or not It's done the legal action of Christ on the cross means it's done and incidentally in 1st

Samuel 3 14 God swore to the house of Eli that the iniquities of Eli's household would not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever

So there is no way that that was done or the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit so the reason I'm talking about this Colossians 2 14 first Peter 2 24 reputation things like that is

Sin is a legal debt. Jesus equated sin with legal debt. I've explained the context of legal debt out of Romans 4 4 we talked about the issue of him bearing our sins and you got into the issue of bearing of sins means

What was it? It's it is coextensive with with taking extensive.

Yeah, and you also use some other language, but I can't find my notes I got a type a lot when we do this kind of thing and And so what

I'm seeing from you is an incoherent system By which you impose upon scripture certain ideas and you redefine words

And when I get to you very specific from the Word of God, at least I try to I'm not saying I do it perfectly

But I certainly try and then you say every word is debatable Well, then we don't have any discussion

We don't have any debate if every word is debatable Then I can debate every word that you're saying when it's in the context of every word is debatable

And we don't want to do that. We want to get into Regularity normative context and speaking but to obfuscate by saying everything is debatable really doesn't accomplish anything

You're knowledgeable enough. I am too to be able to be look at the scriptures to see what these things mean We're talking about the imputation of Christ righteousness to us

And it clearly is true that our sins were imputed to him on the cross and he canceled the sin debt on the cross

This is the language of imitation and it's right there in Scripture It's only in my opinion if you were to adopt a different view like Eastern Orthodox that you would then in my opinion do just violence of the scriptures

Before I don't want to cut you just let you know, we got about 30 seconds. So To make it an hour.

We got 30 seconds So if that's okay, maybe come on, we'll get the last word and we'll go to closing statements out.

Okay, sure Okay, go ahead. Come on make your last final points to say that I've redefined the words in question is to assume from the outset that the natural definition of these words is the definition that is suggested by Protestant systematic theology

And I would say that that's just an unwarranted assumption because that is the subject of the entire debate

If one is to use words in a coherent sense One cannot and if one is to debate these theological questions

One cannot take one's own point of view to be just intrinsically and innately obvious It may be obvious to the person who is making the argument, but I can say as far as I know myself

I genuinely do not see the scriptures as teaching this point of view and I think

That the proof of the pudding is in the eating It's that if you take the position that justification is co -crucifixion and resurrection

With Jesus the faithful one that provides a much more satisfied Satisfying unified and coherent view of the whole

New Testament indeed the whole Bible And that's why I think legal language which is the hinge on which this debate turns

Legal language does not intrinsically have any relationship to the question of imputation and simply to quote the passages is

Not to demonstrate that they are referring to imputation It is simply to say well what's obvious to me and if one is to say that well

Then there's no question There's no way to have a debate in the first place if one is just say it's so obvious that you must be

Twisting the scriptures in your own mind Okay guys gentlemen excellent We're gonna go to five minute closing statements just to let everyone else know

After the five minute closing statements, I'll open up for Q &A. I'll try to Keep it within 20 minutes.

It's already late for these gentlemen. They're at a different time zone than me I know you guys are okay, but still it's an excellent debate

There was a lot of information to process and some of it went over at least my head because that's smart

You guys are in a whole other level. So Lord willing. I'm gonna bring up profit Google five minute closing statement starting with Matt and then five minute closing statement for come on then

Q &A So get ready guys Let me now hold on do this and let me bring up profit profit

You let him know when he can begin for his five minute closing statement. What? Guy just like stop

He probably just had a little glitch. Yeah, you're gonna have to come back. Hold on guys All right

No big deal, dude. Hold on Come back. Sorry guys. Oh boy, but not

I'm gonna have to keep time. Oh, there he goes. What happened? Okay, man, what happened? You scared me profit.

Anyway, I won't bring you up. You let him know it's five minute closing statements Well, I guess we're ready, all right

Wow, I was really shocked by The last statement I'm hearing typing I'm hearing typing so clicking sounds good mute

Okay, you're typing brother, you know So he said quote legal language does not have any intrinsic relationship to imputation close quote

Yes, it does imputation is legal and even in the the

Eastern Orthodox Bible and 2nd Corinthians 5 19 I believe it actually uses the word impute in the context there.

I remember correctly second Corinthians. I hope I've got this from Yeah Not yeah, not

Counting their trespassers against them and that's the word impute in the in the Bible that that I was referencing

But nevertheless, yes by definition to impute means to legally

Reckon to another's account. That's what imputation means. You can do studies on Greek literature

You can do studies on the historic literature. You're gonna you know, Diki Adzo justification the chaos

You can look for all kinds of stuff Hopefully Philemon do your research on these words and see how they're used.

That's why Paul the Apostle used them And to say legal language does not have any intrinsic now

That means by nature in essence what it is ontologically as it is woven into and related to Does not have any intrinsic relationship to impute.

Yes, it does. Yeah, it does and the reason it does is because sin is breaking the law of God and that's legal late language and Sins, it's a sin that which he's admitted is the case

It's breaking the law of God and that Jesus canceled the sin debt at the cross now this is a supportive verse of the idea that sin was canceled by Jesus because he bored in our

Our sin is bodies on the cross, which is what imputation means to bear our sins

The best he's got is to say well, what does that word really mean? What does that phrase really mean? Now I'm going to tell you that I will use that same kind of argumentation legitimately and I'm not saying it we can't look at those words because I'm talking to atheists and they use the ontological essence out of Something in the preconditions.

I want to know exactly what they mean by certain terms Once I ask them that I work with that But when we do this biblically we have to use the context of the inspired word

That's different than talking about a Nate with an atheist for example and so when he asked me earlier about what what it was and the debt and Ophelia mom and I showed him out of What two verses that I went to Ophelia mom went to Romans 4 for Showing that it has to do with a legal relationship of contractual wage this is what it deals with and to say that legal language here doesn't have any relationship to imputation that he bore our sin and sin is breaking the law of God and it's legal to me is just dumbfounding

Does he you know, was he debating something different? Is it would he someplace else half the time? I mean obviously not but how could he not get this?

How could he not after all the stuff that I've shown him from the context and in the language and what the words mean?

How else is it that we can have our sins imputed to him and just remember? I also went to Romans 5 19 and Talked about how it through Adam sin the many were made sinners.

It doesn't say made fallen It doesn't say anything like that or nature. It says they were made sinners sin is breaking the law of God That means that it's an action that Adam did that represented to his descendants now

There's a concept we haven't gotten into here, which I need to ask Him another conversation what their view of federal headship is federal headship.

Is that the male represents the descendants? I could teach on that for a long time Adam Eve sinned first but sin and in the world through Adam Romans 5 12 because he's our federal head

I get into that So in federal headship, it's a legal representation Thank you, it's a legal representation issue

So Jesus, I mean Adam sin was imputed to us We were made sinners.

That means the value can but that's what Romans 5 19 is saying Romans It's gonna be first Peter 2 24 says that our sin was born in his body.

How does he bear in himself a Sin a sin debt because that's what it is

And Jesus cancelled the sin that at the cross and folks Colossians 2 14. This is for everybody

It was cancelled at the cross not when you believe and because it's cancelled at the cross

It's not maintained by your effort and every false religion I know and have studied will teach that faith in God and your faithfulness in Doing things is what makes you right with God.

That's a false gospel Yeah, I'm saying it again, it's a false gospel we could talk about that issue some other time

I think I'm out of time Okay Okay.

Thank you, Matt. Excellent. Now, I'm gonna bring up Caban now guys right after this get your questions ready

Lord willing we'll take them make sure the questions are related to the topic not any other issue

But the topic address and the issues they raised. Okay, brother. Go ahead In saying that imputation is not intrinsic to legal language

What is meant is that the specific reformed doctrine of the imputation of an alien? Righteousness to the account of the believer is not intrinsically related to legal language

The purpose of the law court is to get at the truth of things when we put someone on trial

What we are seeking to do is to determine their guilt or their innocence Paul and Romans 6 says reckon yourselves dead to sin

Well, why are we to reckon ourselves dead to sin because we have been crucified with Christ because we have been resurrected with Christ the way in which

Imputation language is utilized in the New Testament and if you want to call it imputation you can do so But the question is what does the word imputation actually signify?

How does it work in the whole context of the New Testament gospel the way in which it is relevant? Is that Jesus has joined us to himself by the

Spirit in whom we are crucified and resurrected? With him and because we have actually been put to death in Christ and made alive in the

Spirit we are reckoned by God as what we Actually are and that is the major issue of this debate is there an imputation of an alien righteousness which occurs apart from what we actually are transformed into by the

Spirit or Does God reckon us as being what we actually are because by the miracle of regeneration we are actually resurrected and Transfigured into the glory of God and what does that have to do with final justification?

Take a look at Romans 2 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God But the doers of the law who will be justified now many people will say this is a hypothetical

Category which Paul will go on to say that no one will fill The problem is that Paul just after this says when

Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature what the law requires They are a lot of themselves, even though they do not have the law

They show the work of the law is written on their hearts So you cannot say it's a hypothetical category which no one fulfills because Paul Shows a category of people who actually do fulfill the law of God And so if Matt's entire argument is going to be predicated on saying that nobody can fulfill the law of God Therefore it has to be an alien righteousness which allows us to be justified on the final day

It is undermined from the very beginning of the letter to the Romans because Paul says we are justified on the final day because we are

Actually transformed into that which is no longer an object of wrath Matt said very significantly.

I think that if you say that it is not I but the grace of God which is in me This is just self -contradictory.

Well, his argument isn't with me It's with the New Testament because that was a quotation from what the Apostle Paul himself says in 1st

Corinthians 15 Not I but the grace of God which is in me So if this is incoherent language or if this language innately

Misrepresents the reality of things then I would suggest that that the Protestant with all respect take it up with the

Apostle Paul Matt suggested that debt is the programmatic image here and that debt is

Self -explanatory as pertaining to the imputation of an alien righteousness but what I've suggested from the beginning of this debate is that debt signifies a difference between what we ought to be and what we

Actually are just like a debt in the literal financial sense is a difference between what we owe and what we actually

Are able to pay the way in which this debt is overcome is by our actual joining with Christ by the

Spirit It's by actually being transformed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit by actually appropriating the riches of divine glory

Such that Christ in us who lives through us makes reparation

For that which was owed that separation that we have relative to God So, how does

Jesus bear in himself sins? I would say he bears in himself the sins in the way that Peter himself is one minute remaining

The image of bearing sin in his body is taken from Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 53 excludes by the nature of its language the idea of the

Imputation of an alien righteousness instead the way in which Jesus bears sin is by him actively taking into himself the separation the opposite of Reconciliation the illness which

Isaiah describes sin as the whole body is sick from the crown of the head to the soul of the foot He was stricken.

That's language, which is about leprosy. It's about sickness for our transgression in his body He takes into himself the illness which is described in various places as sin

He tastes death for all so that in him we might actually be transfigured into the glory and the image of Christ not merely have the imputation of an alien righteousness, but From God and to the glory of God alone.

We might actually be transfigured into a visible mirror of God Okay, just I just want to thank the

Lord Jesus for Prophet Google excellent job and keep in time You're a blessing brother Lord bless you mightily and grant you perfect health

So now I'm gonna put you in the background. I'm gonna bring Matt to the forefront. Okay, hold on All right folks before we begin the

Q &A even though I said don't ask questions until we start the Q &A guess what You tell

Christians what not to do they go ahead and do it and when you tell them what to do They don't do it. I love it, man.

Yeah, okay This is now going to be the Q &A before we do that Matt Wanted to know if you guys wanted to join him and the after show now

Matt Tell us a little bit about your after show and then come on if you want them to join you afterwards Matt where they can't where can they join you because you mentioned an after show

And people say they were interested in that So what I'll do is I'll just put a link up on my karma Facebook page afterwards

And we can have a little discussion after a while Anybody's welcome to join to that's on your discord.

Is that they're gonna meet you. Oh not discord. It'll be on Facebook I'll just put a link up on karma Facebook and that here it is and people can come in and we can blab and you know whatever

People like doing that after my debates. That's why all right So I'm as calm Facebook page. You can join him after the show now come on You want to do something similar as well, or are you just gonna be late?

My mind but I'd really actually like to do that so I could set up a live stream on my youtube channel And I've never done that before so I hope it's not too difficult

I can I think I can link you to that after the yes You can if you do me a favor set put the links in the private chat and profit will profit

Google left A lot of anyway You can you can put the links in the profit and private chat and then we will post them in the comment section

But profit Google left. I'll do that for you now guys. I will be Lord willing right after this

I'm gonna be joining an Orthodox Jew who challenged me to discuss the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible.

So if you're interested after the discussion I Will be going live with an

Orthodox Jew Using the tena to prove the trinity of God and show that rabbinic Judaism is a contradiction even to the tena

They call it the tena right we call the Old Testament. So that said now is the time to ask questions and please

Indicate the question is directed to who and I'll let the person answer in two minutes

And then the other party can't respond in less than a minute minute or less

So keep your answers to two minutes or less And then if it's directed to Matt Caban will have a minute response minute or less and then we'll reverse it

So go ahead guys ask the questions. I'm looking at the comments and I'll post them here for all to see

Let's see. I'm looking at the question. See if we can feel it's okay. We have one right here For Matt slick, do you agree with Caban?

Hmm rendering Pistis Christou as the faithfulness of Christ if not, can you provide reasons why not?

So in other words instead of fake in Christ, is it the faith of Christ that justifies? Actually thought about that recently and the

Greek Christou of Christ as a genitive so what

I would like to do is just Is Examine that more and see see when

I study things like that. I'll say okay. How's the construction? Is it an active? Is it this what's it next to and and then

I study just see how God uses that that pattern? And I don't have a problem is but the faith of Christ because it still supports my view

And our faith of the faith of Christ. I'd see how scholars Translate it and so, you know,

I'm early on it and what to be the right way to translate that So, you know, I don't have a good comment yet, that's all now come on if you want to respond you got a minute

Sure The reason that I think that it says faithfulness of Christ rather than faith in Christ is because if you look at the context of Romans 3 you've got two major issues in Romans 3 1 to 8

The issue is that Israel has been entrusted with the Torah to do something that is by their faithfulness They will be a light to the world.

Israel has been unfaithful in that vocation. That's also Romans 2 17 to 24 We're told that Israel was supposed to be a light to the world

But they ended up becoming a means by which the Gentiles of blaspheme the name of the Lord You also have the continuing faithfulness of God and so in Romans 3 22 the righteousness of God that is that power which undergirds the faithful activity of God is

Realized in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ who is both God being faithful to Israel and Israel being faithful to God and it's that faithfulness

Of Christ which we participate in we enter into so that Christ lives in us actively a beginning at our faith and baptism and coming to its

Climax or the real beginning in the world to come when we are resurrected from the grave

So it's Christ actively living out his life in us and that's what justification by faith is all about entering into Christ Participating in his faith working through love

Yeah, if you guys just remember the one who's responding has got a minute or less so you guys are doing good so far now guys do me a favor

I See a lot of questions for Matt not as many questions for come on. Let's try to make it even and balanced

I can ask him some more Listen This platform so available for any one of you if you want to come back next week next month.

Let me know I'll be more than happy to host any future exchanges on any topic. Just contact me.

Here's another question for you Matt now This is a metaphysical one and now like I said, it's going over my head at least

I'm not that smart, but I'm learning Here it is for Matt Matt said sin is an abstraction

Given that abstractions are non -causal. How could sin merely be an abstraction if its consequence is death?

Well to say that an abstraction is non -causal needs to be ferreted out because an abstraction can occur with the define what abstraction is

So let me see if I can do this quickly we can have actions that are physical as well as Mental as as in our mind so I can think two plus two equals four.

That's an abstraction It doesn't cannot be weighed. It doesn't have any properties of physicality It's an abstraction just as the laws of logic are love identity love a non contradiction love is good at middle, etc

So to say that that abstractions are non -causal that's not accurate because you can have an abstract

Thing what is two plus two I can ask myself and I could conclude it and have a causation related to it

So, you know to say how could sin merely be an abstraction? I didn't say merely an abstraction.

I said it is an abstraction Sin is an action that occurs in us and the illustration I use as I I slap

Cobain upside the head. Well, is that sin or not sin? It's a sin if there's not a good reason for it and I'm not doing it pretty, you know whatever but it's not a sin if I'm there to protect him and to love him because they're that bolter be that's

Spiders on his cheek and trying to save him. So the intentionality is what makes that abstraction Which leads to an action as whether or not it is

Causal or not. So I think the one who asked the question knows a little bit about philosophy, but not enough

Okay, so you got a minute come on. I Think you know one could use the word abstraction in a whole host of different ways

The question is really in a given context in the New Testament What does sin mean there and I think the most relevant in terms of this debate is probably 2nd

Corinthians 5 and 2nd Corinthians 5 It's Christ becomes sin so that we can become the righteousness of God and Paul when he speaks of becoming the righteousness of God He means that he's becoming an instrument by which

God reconciles the world to himself So what's the flip side of that? the flip side is that the world is becoming fragmented the world man is ruptured from the world from God and From each other and that's what it means to become sin

Christ participates in every aspect of that Fragmentation and thus reverses it undoes it and unifies heaven and earth unto glory

Question for Kaban. All right Very Chris system while not teaching imputation

Interprets much of this in a more Augustinian way. Would you agree that Orthodox can interpret this that way?

Well, I think I disagree with the premise of the question and that I don't agree that Augustine taught that justification occurred through imputation in the

First place. I mean you said Chris lost him all not teaching imputation I would need to understand what texts you're referring to but Chris system as I understand him

And I know the scripture is much better than I know the father's to be quite honest with you. Chris system will not teaching Imputation teaches that the righteousness of God by which we are justified is

God's unrighteousness Because the righteousness which justifies us is a righteousness which we receive from God and that reception is not the declaration

That we have on to our account in alien righteousness But it's rather that we actively appropriate that so that God's works become our works and God's life becomes our life

But in order to really I think engage that question I would need to understand the premise of your question a bit better Do you want to spawn that?

No, okay. All right. Here's a question Okay, this is directed towards you

Matt it's what do you think of the idea Alistair McGrath? He's a Protestant, you know the great

Protestant scholar that the idea of external knows justification Protestantism is a novelty unheard of before Luther that what

I Missed a word. Where is what basically the idea of that?

Justification is forensic. It's a declaration and not an actual transformation is Novelty that was only introduced by Luther prior to Luther.

You won't find it in the church fathers as they rescue. I Have a saying about church fathers. My church father can beat up your church father

I found that the church fathers contradict themselves and each other and I don't use the church fathers as my final authority

The final authority is the word. What does the Bible teach? Does the Bible teach forensic justification? Yes, it does as a teach imputation

Yes, it does sin is a legal debt. I've gone through this over and over we have an alien righteousness That's not our own

Philippians 3 9 and righteousness. That's not our own is what we possess. That's what it says Philippians 3 9

This stuff is right there in Scripture Here's a point to think about if you go to 2nd

Thessalonians 2 you'll see that Paul the Apostle had to correct the

Thessalonians Even though he had told them specifically from his own mouth about the return of Christ and it had to be written down to to fix their error their understanding of Quote dare

I say oral tradition and they were already getting it wrong while he was alive What makes you think that all the church fathers are gonna get it, right?

Or some do or some don't and what's your standard and we could talk about that because then it comes in a whole bunch of Problems, so I don't look at the church fathers as my authority.

I look to Jesus Paul Peter Even Jesus taught just to my faith alone

I can show you that in Scripture if anybody's interested ask me and I'll show you where Jesus taught justification by faith without any works

I can show it to you. But you know, that's that's what I would say is Is that I'll just leave it

Come on, you have a minute to respond Well Since this isn't a debate about the fathers in themselves

I don't want to get into the question of whether the fathers are just totally incoherent with respect to each other It's been my experience that there really is a mind of the fathers

As one works through them and there's a remarkable degree of unity which one finds in them Nevertheless, the father's not an errant like the

Bible's in Aaron But what I do think is most relevant is that Matt throughout this debate has suggested that his interpretation of certain words and concepts is nearly

Self -evident such that one simply could not be of goodwill or or one could not one must be

Being misled or corrupted in some way if one reads something differently So it's very suggested apart from the question of whether the fathers have any intrinsic authority.

It's very suggested that even a Protestant Theologian who's not a liberal Protestant but Protestant theologian would agree that you do not see the idea of an imputation of an alien

Righteousness prior to Luther and that's the key not what word imputation but alien righteousness

Okay. Now this is directed to you both. So I'll let Kaban answer first. I'll let it under the answer first and You guys have equal time.

So it's directed to both of you both have two minutes So it's according to your understanding of faith. Why did st.

Paul? Offer sacrifice and oaths and acts 1818 21 23 to 27

So come on if you want to take a stab at this you get two minutes and then man has two minutes Yeah, this is a very interesting question and it's quite a difficult question

I'm not sure how much direct relevance it has to this debate But it's an interesting question of nevertheless in relation to this debate

I would say that it's a mistake to think of the sacrificial system as if it principally concerned a way of Dealing with the problem of sin

I would say that the purification or sin offering and the reparation offering are directed toward the problem of sin But the first three offerings and Leviticus 1 2 3 ascension tribute and peace offering do not deal with sin in and of itself

Rather they deal with what it looks like to engage With God at his sacramental table now in Acts 18 and 21

Paul is dealing with the question of how the Jewish Church should approach the

Torah and James says to him show that you yourself do not teach that you should abandon the Torah show that you yourselves live in observance of the

Torah and show it by Actually going into the temple and offering the completion of your Nazarite vow and that's what's going on He'd taken

Nazarite or holy war vow And it shows his own understanding of his missional program now what that means

For Jews who live after the destruction of the temple I am going to just refrain from commenting on it because it's such a difficult issue

It's impossible to deal with in two minutes But I do have a video series which I haven't completed on the issue of the relationship of Israel and the church is written nations

Matt you have two minutes to answer the question. Yeah, I'll just very briefly. It's a very it's a debated and discussed section of Scripture and And There are pluses and minuses and different views strengths and weaknesses

I should say and so I'll just refrain from getting into to The possibilities because it really is not going to do a whole bunch

I agree with most of what he said and that's fine and it is worth an interesting discussion because it does get into some of their areas of theology and covenant relationship and why this and Theorization but for now, you know that that's where we're at right now.

Just just say it's worth another discussion another time We're in depth Okay This is for Kaban Cobain as Matt said the model of atonement in the

New Testament Pre -sage in the Old Testament is penal and sacrificial Sin violates divine justice.

Why does he'll blank out the primary model New Testament atonement two minutes?

So I think what you're referring to there is the kind of argument that you see in Alexander Calamiris is river of fire which suggests that the principal problem with Western Christianity is

That they teach that God is a God of wrath rather than the God of love now I don't agree with Calamiris at all on that You're actually gonna find if you look at orthodox literature a lot of criticism of that way

Which is kind of a I think a Marcionite way of looking at atonement now I do agree that there is a penalty for sin that penalty is death and that Christ takes the penalty

How does he take the penalty it is by tasting death for all what is justice?

Justice the word denotes balance it refers to things being in a right relationship

With each other and the way in which Christ satisfies divine justice is by his reparation of the world by his re or re or Reordering of all things around himself and consecration of those things to the

Father So there is a real biblical teaching of divine wrath There is a real biblical teaching of penalty and substitution and we can even say penal substitution

One just needs to be clear about what exactly one means by that. So the penalty is death Christ takes the penalty

How does he take it? He takes it by tasting death and I agree with you that there is a very sub biblical tendency among some orthodox people

But I would argue you look like st. Phil are out of Moscow. He fully affirms the restitution area or satisfaction language with respect to the atonement

Okay, Matt you have two minutes Yeah Yeah, so I I believe

I've shown from Scripture and the nature of sin the sin death the transference of sin imputation the imputation of Adam's sin to us out of Romans 519 and the aorist passive indicative the same thing imputation of our sin to Christ first Peter 2 24 the sacrificial system which had to be legal

I've got a whole paper article on that legality necessary. The EO does get rid of the

New Testament model of the atonement I believe the reason it does is because it offers a synergistic satirical system.

I believe that it offers man's efforts Cooperative efforts in order to be justified

I believe it's a false gospel and I believe that all who die in EO in that gospel will end up going to hell

Now I don't say that with vitriol and hatred. I just believe that that's that's what I do And I won't back off from that unless the scriptures can be proven to to to contradict that it was a comment

He made and not attacking him but there's a mistake that a lot of people make when they say that God is a god of wrath not of love.

That is a mistake that people make about God There's a doctrine called the divine simplicity inside the doctrine of the

Trinity. God is one thing You don't say he's wrath Not love you don't say he's this and that all the qualities of God's essence and nature are

Simultaneously eternal consistent into what he is is called divine simplicity. He is wrathful. He's also merciful.

He's also justice He's also he also hates those who commit sin. He loves people all those have to work in simultaneously in a coherent system to bring

Bring about an understanding of how God can hate the center of Psalm 5 5 Psalm 11 5 and yet love everybody

Generically Matthew 5 43 to 48 and it's in the doctrine of divine simplicity Which I would be glad to teach on the doctrine of the

Trinity and other stuff And simplicity and perichoresis and other things if anybody's interested sometime

Again this is for Matt if Justification is a one -time event and if Abraham was justified in Genesis 15 verse 6

Does that mean his faith in Genesis 12? Wasn't justifying faith if not, why not?

Okay, if justification is a one -time event in the New Testament context when it's in relationship to the imputed righteousness of Christ To us

Philippians 3 9 or alien righteousness and if Abraham was justified in Genesis 15 6 Does that mean that his faith in Genesis 12 wasn't justifying faith?

No, it talks Paul the Apostle is the one who said that Abraham believed God was reckoned him as righteousness

Paul's the one who took that out of the context there and applied it in the context there and then said that the one

Who does not work, but believes his faith is credited as righteousness. He's simply showing the

Romans that faith is something that is accredited before the law and after the law and that it was an issue of before Christ three before before Abraham, so I would have to know exactly what verse you are talking about in Genesis chapter 12 and This I'm going to say this in concert with Cobain he said something earlier about looking at his particular words and ideas in context

I totally agree with that and that's why I want to say I need to see the specific verse What's your exact question go through and answer it even better?

But that's my general answer right now It was just showing the issue of justification by faith without the works of the law, which is what the

Bible clearly teaches us Go ahead. Come on. You got two minutes, bro Yeah, I would say that this is a very good question and with all respect

I don't think that Matt really dealt with the force of the question Which is that for the reformed position as Matt presents it

Justification is something hat which happens definitively which happens once and prior to which one does nothing which pleases

God and If one dies before that one will be eternally damned now if one takes

Paul in Romans 4 to be speaking about Justification in the sense that Matt has elaborated it then one would have to say that before Genesis 15 as Paul interprets it that Abraham would be under God's wrath that he would not be justified that there would be no

Legitimate true or saving faith. The problem is that Hebrews 11 clearly contradicts that He was 11 verse 8 by faith

Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an

Inheritance, so Abraham has faith prior to Genesis 12 so I think it's very telling that there's one reading of this text of Romans 4 which would make

Paul a very poor interpreter of The Old Testament a self contradictory and internally incoherent interpreter of the

Old Testament And there's one interpretation which makes sense or both at all and of the Old Testament Yeah, all right.

I'm a I'm in myself supposed to give you a minute, but my mind shut down So I'm gonna give Matt an extra time when it's his turn to rebut

But sadly or maybe Matt loves it more the questions are directed towards Matt could be so let me give you another one

Here you go Can Matt explain why bear sin and 1st

Peter 2 24 has a different meaning than what the expression means in? Leviticus 10 verses 16 and 17 where it seems not to mean forensic imputation

Well, you said it seems not to mean that I don't know what Leviticus 10 16 to 17 says on top of my head

The problem with ask doing questions like this is that I would have to stop what

I'm doing Go look at the context and see how it's used and I don't have time to do that It's not appropriate right here to do that The issue is that Jesus bore our sin in his body on the cross now

There's obviously a difference but the Old Testament type typological Representation of the fulfillment of Christ in all things and how he bore our sin in his body in the cross

So if we go to Leviticus, let me see if I can do this quickly Leviticus 10 My Bible program ready over here

Leviticus 10 I'll give you both the time. Yeah, we just discuss it

I guess what I always like to do about verses I'm not really familiar with is just say I want to study it later and that's fine

But it says Moses searched carefully for the great that go to the sin offering and behold it had been burned up So he was angry with Aaron surviving sons

Eliezer I Say why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place for it was most holy and gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation well the first thing

I'm going to thinking of is that the priest is that he's in the place of federal headship and If you go to number chapter 12

Miriam and Aaron Rebuking Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman and only

Miriam was judged with leprosy and Aaron was not because he's a high priest He represented the people in the congregation

So he was remained ceremonially holy the high priest was the one who would take the place of Christ's ultimately represented

Christ and doing various things so he's not the one who would make atonement in the sense that Jesus would make atonement because Leviticus 17 11 says that the

Atonement is by blood and Jesus offered his blood and that's where the true atonement is so anything done in the

Old Testament is a representation of that in the New Testament and had to be interpreted in light of that that actuality and there's more details

I can get into but That's good enough for now Come on, I'll give you a minute and a half

Well, I agree that the reality is in Christ but if the

Old Testament is to provide the grammar in which we understand that reality then we have to read the Old Testament in Such a way that it actually is

Consistent with what the New Testament means is actually accomplished from Christ and the fact that Aaron bears the sin of the people by eating their the sin offering is very significant because what eating is is it's fundamentally joining oneself to That which one eats that's why marriage is often celebrated by a marriage feast.

You are what you eat So when you eat the same thing you're being joined to one another Christ has the church in his mouth because crying

That's how he can spit them out because Christ is actively joined with the people now Leviticus 10 speaking about the high priest is significant because Peter quotes or alludes to Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 53 is all about the high priest.

It says that the servant will sprinkle many nations. He makes intercession for the transgressors

There's all sorts of high priestly language throughout Isaiah 53 and the fact that Leviticus 10 Suggests that the way in which the high priest

Typologically for the sin of the nation is not by the imputation of an of an alien

Record, but by actively joining oneself with the sin offering suggests that the

New Testament Reality is carried out and accomplished in the same way Excellent.

You guys are doing wonderful. That's why I say you guys are professional. God bless you guys. Here's another question We'll look at a few more

This one is for I keep Cabane right? I'm okay calling cabane Cabane yeah.

Yeah, cuz I don't know. It's cabane a cabane man. Can you make your name a little harder? All right. Okay. Okay. Come in.

So Lafitte is fundamental in preaching the gospel for Protestants Can you please share with us the gospel and how it's different from the

Protestant view even though you just had a two -hour debate But maybe you want to sum it up in two minutes good So I would recommend to you a book called it's by Matthew Bates who is himself a

Protestant But I think it's quite a good book on this called salvation by allegiance alone and the word gospel in the

New Testament comes from Isaiah 52 where the gospel is the Announcement that God has become king in the person of the servant

So it says from eye to eye They saw the return of the Lord to Zion and they saw the return of the

Lord to Zion as king now Gospel is good news It's an announcement of something which is objectively happened and Paul says that the gospel this announcement this

Objective coronation of Jesus is king of the world is the power of God unto Salvation for those who believe so the gospel has to be subtly distinguished from its power from its implications

What it actually means for us in terms of salvation But I would say that the gospel that Jesus has become king of the world

That means that Jesus's program of righteousness is presently being implemented as as he subjects all nations to his feet and what that means for us is that we can be joined to Christ and inherit the world to come and live

Eternally in the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ forever Matt you have a minute Yeah, he forgot to include baptism sacraments enduring and doing all the things you got to do in EEO to make yourself right with God And keep yourself holy with the infinite

Holy God of the universe The gospel is defined in first contents 15 1 through 4 is a death burial resurrection of Jesus Christ He didn't even go to that second

Corinthians 5 Second Corinthians 4 4 2nd Corinthians 4 verses 3 3 and 4

It's been a long time to quote of this if our gospel is availed that is available to those who are perishing in his case The God of this world has blended the minds of the unbelieving

So the gospel is it is Christ centered the focus of what he did in the cross? He bore our sin in his body in the cross

If you want to be saved from the righteous judgment of God put your trust in your faith and your hope in Jesus Christ Not in your works not in your baptism not in your sacraments not in anything put it all in Jesus Faith is only as good as who you put it in put it all in the

Lord Jesus Christ trust in him Ask them to forgive you of your sins and he will Okay, we'll take about three four more questions and we'll wrap it up wordly.

Okay. This is again for conveying What is the meaning of verse Matthew 23

Matthew 12 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment

For every empty word they have spoken and I think you wanted to 37 for by your words You'll be vindicated by your words.

You'll be condemned. I guess somehow your words justify you that's the point what from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and the justification of Christians in the church occurs by the circumcision of the heart this is what we see in Romans 2 25 to 29 where Paul speaks of those

Gentiles who have been circumcised in their heart and thus been Made able to fulfill the law in the way that the

Apostle Paul means the reference of Deuteronomy 30 verses 1 to 6 There is no text in the

New Testament which speaks of the final judgment as being by anything other than works The question is how are those works produced?

Well, Paul answers this very clearly in Romans 8 13 where it says you live according to the flesh you will die But if by the

Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live So it is by the Spirit that we have the good works upon whose basis we are

Justified on the final day it is by Christ alone because it is only Christ living in us Which enables us to facilitate those good works, but by your words you are justified by your words

We are condemned thus you have to be joined to the Word of God the Logos Jesus Christ and I would just say in response to something that Matt said if he thinks that I forgot to include something

That's essential to the Eastern Orthodox gospel. I might suggest With all respect that that perhaps he has misunderstood in one way or another the

Eastern Orthodox gospel So, you know, I would like to talk privately about him. I think this has been a very cordial and and good conversation

Matt you have a minute. Yeah, I don't like Matthew 12 36 and 37 because it means

I'm gonna have to face God and the things that I've said and done but it doesn't mean that I'll be judged for damnation by them because Romans 8 1

Says therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus My hope is in with the blood of Christ.

My hope is in the work of Christ My hope is not in my ability to be good or stay good in my effort or anything

It's all in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ every cult and false religion ever does I've ever studied it's always faith and something you do if you go to Luke 18 9 through 14 people

Jesus gives the account the parable of the Pharisee the tax -gatherer the Pharisee says look he believes in God.

Look what I do and look what I don't do He's being sincere. He's doing stuff. He's abiding in God all this stuff and He wasn't justified

God says the the other one the tax -gatherers who only said be merciful to me the sinner

That is justification by faith without any works without anything. That's what Jesus taught Paul teaches the same thing.

That's the gospel message All right, this question for Matt. We'll end it with a question for both of you.

All right, this is for Matt now You are missing the overarching biblical context of salvation instead of focusing on forensic imputation

Why not anchor salvation what Peter does partaking of divine nature in other words theosis

Matt? What do you say to that? That's assuming divine nature partaking. That means Theosis that's just big in the question

Establish that that is the case and it certainly is an eschatological and that we will Be rewarded by what?

We have done loss of reward and things like that. So To say this the overarching biblical context of salvation is not forensic is in my my opinion rather Shortsighted I have given plenty of verses and there's a lot more

I think on to Roma 320 Galatians 2 16 to 20 221

I haven't gone there Galatians if you go to Romans 6, I mean, there's so much to talk about on this topic

I've been debating it with cults false religious systems for years and years and to say that I'm rejecting the overarching theme

By saying that it's forensic. No that no it is forensic. It is but you go to one verse and say

Participant the divine nature you have to demonstrate anyone who supports that is theosis You have to demonstrate from that context and from that there that that is what it means

Not what you think it means you show me as what it means and it's a very debated topic or some scripture

I should say anyway, go ahead Do you have a minute? Yeah, I mean

I would just say that I mean partaking of the divine nature The prima facie reading of that would mean that we acquire divine qualities by participation in Christ and I would say perhaps even a stronger text for this would just be the

Overarching thread of the letter to the Romans where it's the glory of the immortal God That glory which raised

Jesus from the dead and that glory which is revealed in us Which is the instrument which accomplishes our transfiguration from the first moment of grace to the last day in which we are

Resurrected from the dead and I would just say again with respect to the forensic language salvation is forensic but Forensic language the nature of the law court is to get at the actual truth of things

So God transfigures our heart by the Spirit and the forensic aspect is the recognition of what has actually been accomplished

Reckon yourselves dead to sin or impute yourselves dead to sin because you have actually been crucified with Christ Final question for both.

I'll let Cobain begin two minutes each. You guys got two minutes So start with Cobain, but excellent question,

I think to conclude for both in Psalm 106 Phineas or Phinehas is

Justified by an action That he did in cooperation with God, by the way He's referring to Psalm 106 30 to 31 if you guys want the reference

Psalm 106 Versus 30 31. So if you want to take a moment look at it Go ahead Phinehas is justified by an action that he did in cooperation with God with the same

Greek grammar used Septuagint of Psalms for justification New Testament thoughts

So it's Psalm 106 30 31 where Phinehas killed the Israelite and the woman and God then credited to him as Righteousness same language.

So Cobain, you got two minutes and then we'll conclude with Matt. I would say that the most important implication of this text is that a

Credited as righteousness or accounted as righteousness does not mean that what is being accounted is the instrument for something else to be accredited as Righteousness, but rather that the thing itself is being accredited as righteousness so what's going on in Psalm 106 and in the text to which it affirmed it refers is that God has made a covenant of Priesthood with Phinehas on the basis of what he has did just as God made a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 on the basis of his trust that God would do what he promised he would do and Matt's Perspective and the traditional view of imputation is that faith does not justify you

Matt's perspective is that faith is the instrument by which the alien righteousness of Christ justifies you

But in the New Testament, it is faith which justifies you because of what faith is It is not the instrument for something else to come in and justify you and I think that's a very important distinction to make because those are two very different claims and you just will not find in the

New Testament a statement that you are justified by the righteousness of Christ that is transmitted to you through faith

It is rather that you are justified by faith because faith in itself in the quality of its character is participation in the life of Christ Matt you have two minutes and we're gonna wrap it up after that.

Good. Yeah, Phinehas set up and he interposed He interposed means he stood in between two opposing parties or two issues and mediated between them

And this is typological of the mediator sure work of Christ first Timothy 2 5 and in that It's an act of faith that he did when he said before God and God Considered it to righteousness ultimately all righteousness and all imputation of righteousness is based upon the work of Christ But no one could be justified apart from that.

This is just another example in the Old Testament we're reckoning of righteousness is according to the amount of law and the knowledge that they have back then for now is deals with the issue of Christ and Yes, the

Bible does say we're Justified by the righteousness of Christ, but it doesn't say the word Christ specifically.

It does say the righteous is that's not our own The righteous that comes from God Philippians 3 9

So what righteousness do you think it is when Jesus Christ is the one who fulfilled the law perfectly and never sinned

He is the one who we were in is the whole topic of federal headship, which we need to get into What does that mean?

We died with him and within him and all this stuff It means it's very important And so yeah

His righteousness is imputed to us because we're in him and we died with him for Romans 6 6

Romans 6 8 So yeah I would say that the verses definitely suggest that and show that the imputed righteousness of God by faith is received faith

It's the instrument that God grants and when he does it's sufficient to have us be justified By what

Christ has done because God gets all the glory. Amen. And amen, not us

Again as I suspected these guys did an excellent job They were professional respectful and showed love and courtesy to each other glory to Jesus Christ for that Just want to let you guys know

Matt is gonna have an after show you go to Facebook on Car Facebook car and Facebook and I just gave you cabanes

Link to his YouTube channel. He's going to have an after show as well So right when we're done those of you want to engage

Matt on these issues car Facebook go to Facebook with car It's there cabane. I just posted the link to his

YouTube channel. He'll also be going live right after this Lord willing now I Will make available my

YouTube channel and this platform for anyone who wants to debate any topic related to Christianity If Matt wants to do a topic on federal headship with anyone

Just let me know contact me if anyone wants to do any other topic That divides

Christians whether the issue of Marian doctrines or communion saints or justification Sola scriptura contact me.

I'll be more than happy to host it and you see I try to be as fair as possible So Matt if you find someone that wants to debate you on federal headship

I'll be more than happy to host it cabane same thing If there's a topic you want to debate, let me know I'm here to serve you for the sake of Christ But pray for these gentlemen pray the

Lord the work he began and then he'll complete it till the day of Christ Jesus Pray that I can be a gracious servant to the body of Christ and thank you guys for keeping it civil

I'll be going live myself in about 15 minutes to debate an

Orthodox Jew So if you want a more neutral topic an Orthodox Jew Trinity tena join me for the glory of Jesus Yeshua Moshiach We love you father's my spirit

May the Lord Jesus be glorified always and may forgive us our shortcomings and seal us by the Spirit for the day of redemption