Total Depravity Discussion after show, 6/14/21

Oh, we're on, we're live. Sorry, this is the after show thing.

And I had to put all the information up on Facebook, then I hit go, then

I had to do something. And I forgot I hit the go button. So there we go. Like I've done after shows before,

I'm gonna wait for people to come in. Usually takes them a little bit of time. I gotta verify that the information I posted up on Facebook went.

And so people can participate in the YouTube if they want. And there's that.

And so, okay. That's where that is. And we got nobody else coming in.

I guess right now, let me check on Facebook. I'm stalling. Wait, where is it? There it is.

Just now, participate directly. And there's the link. Good, so it's up. I think

I may talk to, take this opportunity to use the restroom. Because, hey

Charlie, hey, I'm gonna use the restroom really fast, okay? Because it's been a couple, two and a half hours or so.

And I'll be right back. Okay, I'll wait for you. Waiting for him, okay.

Yeah, I'm hoping some of you got, oh, there's Corey Albright. I'm glad you joined us, Corey.

I think Matt answered that. But he went by it pretty quickly.

Perhaps in here he can take a little more time with you and show you how that works.

And I hope you got your Bible open and looking at it. Let's see.

Yeah, I'm not sure, Laura, if Matt's gonna invite people in.

And since it's his room, I'm not gonna presume to post the link. I'll let him do that since it's his channel, his room.

I don't think he'd mind. He trusts my judgment, but I'm not exactly sure what is going on in and around his immediate atmosphere.

We're in different states in the country. So, oh, you saw it on Facebook.

Oh, well, then Corey can get the, well, Corey, StreamYard is a place where you can join us.

Just like Matt and I are in here now. I think

I will post the link. If you click on this link, I, with Matt's permission, will let you in.

Okay. Hey, I was just thinking of posting the link so Corey Albright can join us, sure.

Sure, yeah, right in there. Oh, you did it? I did it too. There it is. Yeah, put it on Facebook. Corey can get in.

And if he wants to talk, that's fine. So what'd you guys all think? Come on in if you want, you know, come in here.

And if you don't, you can put chats in on the Facebook, excuse me, the

YouTube thing. Yeah. Let's see, Laura. Oh, I saw the StreamYard link on Facebook. It's Charlie Claus.

Yeah, StreamYard requires at least an audio. Yeah, a microphone of some sort, if you want to come on in.

I'm going to let Bill in, should I? Yeah, let Bill. He's a complete total loser, but you know, it's okay.

Pretending to be a loser. Now Matt's going to make you feel right at home the way he makes me feel at home.

That's right, I insult everybody. Yeah, if at your house, a normal thing to feeling at home is getting insulted and abused a little bit, you're going to fit right in, sure.

You know how I do insult the ladies, but you know how I do it? I say, what are you thinking working with Karm?

It's a problem here that you, you know, so. Did you ghost write an article on the

Babylon Bee about women making sandwiches? I, no, I didn't, but you know what?

It was, I was suspicious that you might've done it. My wife was too.

She thought they must've been listening to me, you know, on the radio or something like that. So I don't know, maybe they are, cause they have, you know, they satirized me years ago.

So, you know, who knows, but, but you know, sandwiches. I just love the idea. Women making sandwiches for the bed.

Actually, I make more sandwiches than my wife does, but I love the whole thing, you know. Hey, making sandwiches, you know.

Let's see if I can get, if it's cool air. I think it's cool enough out there. Let's see.

Oh, okay, I get some air going on me. It's a little warm in here. All right, there we go.

So what'd you guys all think of the debate or discussion, you know? I liked that. It was good, I like discussion.

I wish AK would answer my question, Acts 13, 48. Acts 13 what? 13, 48.

Oh yeah, as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Yeah, they say they believed because God worked it and he arranged and they freely believed, yeah.

I thought the thing with the ARS passive indicative out of Romans 5, 19 and Philippians 1, 29 was really powerful.

Yeah, that was. That's right.

Retirement discussions. Good thing he had good objections, to be honest.

Yeah, he had good objections, sure. See what

I wanted, like I told him, we need to talk about what it means to be good and how that goodness occurs. Because he's saying that people can be good and have faith of their own free will in their sinful state.

That's a problem. Let's see if I can get this to go like that. There we go.

The new, the new what is heresy? Since these gospels were written by the faithful, there are no gods.

Well, I don't know what that means. A compendium of the Bible book, a compendium of folk tales and fables.

Brian doesn't understand what he's talking about. Tales are counted orally for generations by primitive tribes from the stone ages.

Yeah, he is profoundly ignorant about how things work. Hey, Corey.

You know, it was obvious that AK doesn't understand Calvinism. Yeah, he doesn't understand it as well as you do.

And I didn't in my first 23 years of my Christian life until just recently. Yeah.

Could someone explain exactly what it is that you think AK, where the misunderstanding with AK is?

Because I hear Calvinists all the time talk about this misunderstanding. And it doesn't ever seem to be fully explained.

So I'd like to hear what about Calvinism did AK not understand or misrepresent?

Total depravity does not mean a person cannot become worse. And it does not mean that Satan won't work to make things worse in a person.

To say that Satan doesn't need to work on somebody if they're totally depraved, means they don't understand what reformed theology teaches.

We don't teach that because a person is totally depraved, that Satan doesn't need to be there to do anything because they can become even more evil.

And God certainly uses the evil of Satan and others to accomplish his divine will, because God predestines it, as it says in Acts 4 .27

.28, which he denied that God predestined evil, because he does. But how he does it is explained in what's called the ultimate, approximate and efficient causation issues, which he doesn't seem to understand and want to know.

And this is part of reformed theology and how to understand these kinds of things. So yeah, there's just one of the areas.

Irresistible grace, I've had to correct him on this several times before, does not have to do with faith, it has to do with regeneration.

Irresistible grace means that at the point of regeneration, that can't be resisted, because it's an act of God upon an individual's nature, soul, spirit, whatever you wanna call it, we don't know exactly, but it's what

God does when he makes us born again. We don't say that faith is irresistible, because it's not used that way, it's not how we teach it.

It's irresistibility deals only with the issue of that irresistible grace at the point of regeneration. And because of that regeneration, we are then enabled to believe, which is why it's consistent with the scripture to say that God grants that we believe if it's 129.

And we ask them, from his perspective, if it's so true that they can believe with their own will, why does

God have to grant it to them? See? Aren't you just negatively inferring that he grants it to the

Calvinist version of the elect? I mean, that's not stated anywhere in scripture. Okay, I'm saying, first of all, you asked me to show you something.

Did I accomplish it or not? Did I show you in the areas that I didn't understand? Yes and no.

I would say a lot of it's semantics. It's either yes or no. I either did or I did not. No, no, no, no. It's more semantical, right?

So you say it's the regeneration. Well, thank you. I agree with you about how good looking

I am. Thank you. I agree with that. So you say that it's the regeneration that's irresistible rather than the faith -

Yeah, that's right. I do have a nice car. Yeah, that's true. I don't know how you knew that, but that's good.

So is faith irresistible or not? No, I would say the number four, not five. So? Well, it's all semantics, isn't it?

If it's all semantics, then I can have anything. You say, give me whatever I want. It's all semantics.

No, no, no, no, no. What she says is what you said. It's what you said. It's all semantics.

So let me ask you. Is it all semantics? Can I further explain? Let me ask you. Can I further explain? Let me ask you. Let me ask you. You're making distinct things without a difference.

Let me ask you. Corey, is it all semantics or not? I didn't say it's all semantics.

I said you made semantical. You described what he doesn't understand and it's semantical.

So in other words, you say - What do you mean by semantical? Can I finish? Let me finish. Well, you've used the terms.

What do you mean by semantical? So you say, oh, he's misusing irresistible grace because it's the regeneration that's irresistible, not the faith that's irresistible.

Okay. Can the faith then be resisted? You mean the faith that God grants to us?

Yes. Can that be resisted? Well, let me answer the question by teaching you. When God grants that you believe, are you believing?

You're answering a question with a question. Yes, I am. I'm trying to teach you. I said, let me teach you. Okay, Corey, if you don't let me speak, you're gonna be gone.

Okay, but you're now - Okay, see, that's how it works. Hello. Watch this.

Hold on, I am. Okay, hold on. I'm gonna get him back in. See how that works?

You ready? What? Now, I'm gonna ask you some questions because the answer to the question, just like Jesus did, he answered questions sometimes with questions.

So, if God grants that they believe, are they believing? If God grants that they believe, are they, not necessarily, it doesn't say that.

So when God grants that they believe, they're not believing? Oh, I didn't say that either. I'm just going -

Well, but you said - When God grants that they believe, are they believing? Because God grants it to them, they're believing.

Well, anyone who's believing has been granted to believe, but that doesn't mean that everyone who's, can we have a discussion?

Yeah. Anyone - You're just talking to yourself. No, no, I'm not. You're not listening. Anyone who has faith has been granted to have that faith, but all who have been granted to have that faith don't necessarily have the faith.

And you can't show me anywhere in the scripture where it says they do. So God grants that they believe, right?

God grants that, correct. God grants that they believe. That's an aorist passive, which means it occurred to them, it's granted to them, and so they're believing.

Okay, so they're believing when God grants that they believe. Right? No, no. Then God granted it to believe.

This is after the fact. This is after the fact and the belief. Corey, you're contradicting yourself. You're contradicting what the scriptures teach because you don't understand what the word says.

Okay, all right. Can we get back to the original point? When God grants that they believe, are they believing?

Can we get back to the original point? When God grants that they believe, are they believing? The ones who believe, yes.

So the ones who believe are granted belief, right? Yes. Okay. All right, that's nice.

Okay, so what else have you got, Will? Yeah. Hey, Matt. Good to see you, brother. I was just coming by because I had a couple questions because me and my friend have been debating

OSAS, against those who teach you can lose your salvation and conditional security. And I think that's a gospel importance that's fundamental to the faith.

And I went to a verse and, you know, I was brought up that verse and I didn't really know how to explain it then.

I wanted to see your view on, because you hold to perseverance of the saint and stuff like that. And I wanted to see your review on it.

It's in 1 Timothy chapter four. It says, and they departed from the living God or some translation says they departed from the faith.

How would you view that verse with conditional, eternal security? How would you explain that to someone?

1 Timothy four? Yep. Okay. So let's take a look at it.

I need to see the exact verse. 1 Timothy four chapter one, chapter four verses one.

Verse one. Yes. It doesn't say that in 1 Timothy four one.

It says, now the spirit express that in the latter time, some will depart from the faith. 2

Timothy or 1 Timothy? 1 Timothy chapter four verses one. All right.

Yeah. They'll fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of hypocrisy of liars.

Yeah. It's a generic apostasy that's going to occur per 2 Thessalonians chapter two.

So that doesn't speak about like certain believer, for example, right? I'm sorry? That doesn't speak about certain safe people?

Those. Well, if you're regenerated, because God regenerates you. If you can lose your salvation and that would mean God actively unregenerates you.

It would also mean that if your sins were paid for and canceled at the cross, that they become unpaid for and uncanceled later on, which makes no sense.

People can belong covenantally to a group and not believe everything in it and then be considered to have fallen away from that group, even though they were considered inside the group.

That's one possible aspect dealing with the covenant aspect. But when it says the spirit expressly says that later times someone will fall away from the faith.

You're just talking about those who say they're Christians, say they're believers. They pay attention to deceitful spirits and they leave the faith.

They're not really regenerated to begin with. They're just false believers as the Bible talks about that. Amen. Like, for example, like we could relate those people to 1

John 2 .19. They went out of us because they weren't ever part of us. Basically they never had salvation to begin with.

Right. If they had been of us, they would have remained, right? Yeah. It's basically like general apostasy.

You know how Judas was playing the good followers of Christ and we would have said that he was a believer, but he was actually never saved to begin with.

Right. And so people have to understand that when it says from the faith, it's like this, it's like this.

If you go to, because this topic has been coming up recently and let me go here.

2 Thessalonians 2. Dang it. 2 Thessalonians 2. And it says about the return of Christ.

Verse three. Let no one in any way deceive you for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first.

The man of lawlessness is revealed. All right. So this is related to this kind of a concept. What does it mean that the apostasy will come?

Because if the apostasy is going to come, does it mean that everybody falls away from the faith? No. Well, what about true believers who are regenerated by God and dwelt by the

Lord? You know, in Hebrews 10, five, I think it says, I'll never leave you or forsake you.

So what's the apostasy? The apostasy has to be of the general church at large because it can't be that every single person becomes an unbeliever or stops believing or whatever.

It just can't be. So, but yet the apostasy has to mean the church, the visible church at large is the issue here.

And so the same thing with 1 Timothy 4, 1, in the last time, and this is what's going on.

It's an apostasy. So it's a general apostasy, the visible church of those who claim to be Christians, and they never were, and it's this whole thing, and they're moving away into false doctrines and stuff like that.

That's what's going on there. Yeah, because like for me, you know, when I read the Jude 1, 24 in the

Bible, it says, now to him who is able to keep you from apostasy. So for me, it seems like a believer will not apostatize.

Would you say it's possible though, for a believer to backslide on their faith? Like to have like trouble?

Cause like, I consider like, cause I know I'm saved cause you know, I believe the right gospel and everything.

I don't think I can lose my salvation. Cause you know, Jesus will not lose any of his own. But I had some other question about certain verse, which was brought up to me, like kind of say you could be removed out of the book of life.

Like for example, Revelation 22 verses 18. How would you see that verse? Cause for me, it seems like.

Yeah, there's debate about what that means because does it mean if you're in the book of life that you have eternal life?

Or does it mean that all people who are alive are in the book of life? And that once you die and are damned, then your name is stricken out.

That's one of the possibilities. We're not sure what it means. Because how it worked in the culture of the time is that you go up to the gates of a city.

And a lot of times there were people there who had books and not always, but they would have books.

And sometimes they'd bring them out from places that were, where they would store it. But the idea is that these books had the listing of all the people who are alive in the city.

And they'd have this listing, a small, you know, 50, 60, 70, 80 people, whatever. And when you died, your name was crossed out.

It doesn't mean that they weren't alive in Christ or alive in God or whatever, but that had to do with that physical thing.

And so some think that it has an allusion to that. Your name's crossed out.

And I'm not exactly sure what it means, because it doesn't mean you're not saved, but the implication kind of seems to be.

So what I kind of lean towards is that everybody has this life, it's all in.

And once you're dead, your name's out, you know, and you're gone. And if you have eternal life, it means you're in the book of life.

Yeah, and my old teacher, Walter Martin, said there's two books. There's the book of life that everybody makes it into.

And then there's the Lamb's book of life. That's where you want to have your name written. That's right.

Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry, Charlie, that's your name, right? Sorry to cut you off.

Go ahead, man. No, that's all right. That's all. I was just gonna say the two books are interesting to compare.

Well, here's the thing that makes it difficult in Romans 3, 5, he overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments and I will not erase his name from the book of life.

Now, does that mean it can be erased? Or does that mean he just won't? It's, some of these things become difficult.

I would say that Revelation 3, 5 says that he that overcome the world shall

I not blot his name out of the book of life. Well, who are those who overcome the world? Well, John says, he who believes in Christ has overcome the world.

So for me, it kind of seems like, yeah, everyone name is written in the book of life. And if you go to Revelation 21,

I think, or it's 20, it says that those who were not found within the book of life were judged according to all they have done to their work and they were cast into eternal fire.

So for me, it seems like, yeah, everyone name is written in the book of life. And if you're saved, your name won't be blot out because you have overcome the world through Christ.

That's kind of the view I was explaining to other people. And I think that's one of the interpretation or there's the other interpretation.

I don't know what you think about this one. That's kind of the free grace view is that there's actually a mistake in the

King James Bible. And it's like, it says the book of life, but it should be the tree of life.

So that's - Might be, it's just a manuscript thing to look and to see. Yeah. And I've seen like, cause like I'm kind of like leaning towards the reformed position a little bit.

I'm going slow by there. But I was just wondering, do you believe in the whole like common grace and there's the salvific grace?

Common grace is generally understood to mean the grace that God gives to the unbelievers. Like let the rain and the sun fall and shine upon them and things like that.

It's a common kind of, and yeah, but special grace is the grace of salvation.

Yeah. So like, for example, like, you know, there's a, I think it's in Colossians. It says that Christ sustained the entire world.

So that could be a type of common grace for the - Oh, Colossians 1 .20, reconcile the world to himself.

Right. And that's a tough one because what does it mean to be reconciled and to put in proper relationship?

Well, he says he made all things, you know, I think what he's talking about is just, he's just speaking generically.

He's not saying every individual is saved because to reconcile all things to this blood, if they're gonna say that it means the atone for everybody, well, then the all things has to also mean for Satan.

If you're gonna just say all things means everything, well, then Satan has to be atoned for, but that can't be the case. And so it can't mean that all things means every individual.

And so it becomes difficult to really, I mean, when you get these nuances to really try and figure it out, but I think what he's just saying, all things, all things like the whole world, it's a generic statement of universality.

That's what I think is going on. Yeah. And like, I've seen like all those type of point on limited atonement, which

I think are kind of showing, you know, the house of Eli, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But I was just wondering, what's your view on it?

Cause you would say that, yeah, Christ didn't die for certain people. Like, for example, those who are burning in hell, you know, he didn't die for them.

But how would you view like in relation to limited atonement, the verse where he says, father, father, forgive them for they not know what they do.

How could he ask the father to forgive them if they have no atonement for themselves?

Well, that's another question I'm often wondered about that verse, you know, forgive them for they don't know what they do. What's he saying?

He's asking the father to forgive them. But Jesus also said, you know, if there's any way for this cup to pass from me, let it pass, but not my will, but your will be done.

And so is he saying, I want them forgiven, or is he just speaking in a lovingly generic sense?

And this kind of a thing occurs in scripture where we see some very specific issues and we see some not so specific issues.

So there are some ambiguities and that's just what it is. Could we even go as far as saying, cause

I think there's two different type of forgiveness in the Bible. Like, for example, like the earthly forgiveness that we should forgive one another, you know, and there's like the salvific forgiveness.

Could we go as far as saying that Christ was actually asking the father to forgive them earthly? Well, he says, let, you know, forgive them.

I've thought about that. Don't know what they do. Is it a, I just don't know how to answer it because that's actually, it's a good place to bring up some other things, but he's making a request of the father.

We don't know if it's carried out. We just don't know. Okay. Yeah, I see.

And like one last question, sorry if I take a lot of your time here, just that I have so much question.

It's about Romans 11, you know, when they were broken up because of unbelief, is that like they're broken up of the covenant or they like lose their salvation?

Which view do you see? Romans 11, they were, Romans 11, 20, they were broken off because of their unbelief.

That has to do with covenant of Israel, the branches. He's speaking metaphorically, the branches are broken off and he's trying to talk about the issue of Israel, national

Israel branches broken off that we might be, or I might be grafted in. You're broken off, went quite right.

They were broken off of their unbelief. If you stand in by faith. And it has to do with national Israel, covenantal

Israel. This is why it's necessary to study covenant. And as I get older and as I started studying theology more,

I'm starting to see more and more the necessity of covenant theology. And I may end up start studying it again later this, towards the end of the year.

I got so many projects now where I just start getting in. It's making more and more sense that this is what is going on.

Yeah, cause if you, cause you know how those works -based salvationists will take it as, oh, well that mean you lose your salvation.

But there's so many problem with that. You know, John 10, John 6, all that type of stuff.

Yeah, lots of problems with losing your salvation, lots. Yeah, and I even heard someone who's anti -Hosea.

He says it in John 10, 27, you know, no man will plug him out of my father's hand. My father is better than all.

He says, well, you can plug yourself out. Yeah, you can plug yourself out. But no man, it means yourself, you know, it's just, it's like, oh.

Yeah, it's like, it's like the Roman Catholics, when they say that, it's like, where do you get that from that scripture?

It's like, no man. And he even says, my father is greater than the man, basically, you know. Yeah, you can plug yourself out.

It says no one. Yeah, it's, it's. A lot of people say, you know, want so hard to work, to war against God, you know.

And, you know, I can lose it, you know, I can lose it. I gotta keep it by being good. That's what it comes down to.

Yeah, it's so, and they'll go to Matt. I can't believe they always bring that verse when it debunks their whole workspace,

Matthew 7, 21, 23. I mean, it's like, you know, look at what he's saying. You know, they'll say, well, he's saying, get away from me, workers of lawlessness.

I never knew you. Well, Jesus says he knows his sheep. So if those people used to be a sheep, how does he say

I never knew you? That just doesn't make sense. Right, but people might say, well, he's just talking about those particular people.

Okay. Yeah, but something that's funny about like, you know, the workers of lawlessness, the

Bible says all the workers of lawlessness love to boast in themselves. And those people before that were saying, have we not, have you not seen our wonderful works?

Yeah, there was, they never were believers to begin with. And they were doing faith and works. I use that with Catholics a lot.

They weren't doing the will of the father. We got other people who want to say stuff. So let's get them to have a chance here.

Hi there, buddy. I know this guy that you're talking to. Jamie.

How's it going? It's going. What do you think the best verses that show the position of once saved, always saved?

What would you say the top three are maybe? John 6, 37 to 40. John 6, what? 37 to 40.

All that the father gives me will come to me and the one who comes to me, I certainly will not cast out.

Yes, sir. Not to do my will, but the will of the one who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me that all he's given me,

I lose nothing. That's a good one. What else? Is there one that says it talks about the, about what it means to be justified or something?

Well, you justify when you believe, but I like also believe they're not for eternal security. I like Colossians 2, 14, and I'll post it in here.

Actually, I'll post in, well, 2, 14, because what it says is really interesting.

And it's right there. And it's talking about Jesus having canceled off a certificate of debt consisting of decrees.

Well, what's the certificate of debt? It's the Greek word kairagraphon. And it means a handwritten

IOU of legal indebtedness. Okay, handwriting, record of debt. And so it's our sin debt because sin is breaking the law of God, 1

John 3, 4. Well, here's the point. If he canceled it, when did he cancel it? It says, having nailed it to the cross.

Well, how much of your sin debt did he cancel? If he canceled your sin debt at the cross and you're gonna go to hell, how can you have your sin debt canceled if you're in hell?

It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, yeah, right. So you're saying it's like it's paid for. So you can, and it's a, it's a -

It's done. Yeah. It's not paid. Okay, the debt is not canceled when you believe.

It's not canceled when you get baptized. It's canceled when Jesus died on the cross. This necessitates a limited atonement that it was only for the elect.

And it also means that you can't lose your salvation because as I like to say with an analogy, you have from left to right, of course the screen's backwards, left to right.

That's right to look. Okay, left to right would be a person is saved and he goes to hell.

Okay, well, but he ends up going to hell. So back here, Jesus bore his sin and died for all of his sin and paid for all of his sin.

All right, well, if he paid for all of his sin, then he can't go to hell. Right, I see what you're saying.

Because all of his sin's paid for. But if they say, no, he can lose his salvation, then not all of his sin's paid for. So how could he be saved if not all of his sin is paid for?

So does going to hell - I think that's a reasonable argument, but I would suggest that you could read a lot of those texts in the sense of that the, everything that pertains to life and eternal life and all that is in Christ or being connected to Christ.

I mean, that's the only other way you can argue it. Well, here's the thing. If you go to Ephesians 1, 4, this is a critical verse.

It's becoming, as I discuss stuff, it's becoming a more important verse. Just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.

That is a divine election, predestination election. He chose us as the father chose us in him, which is federal headship.

So the election of God has to occur concomitantly, simultaneously with us being federally represented.

That's it. And that's limited atonement right there. Necessitates that. Does it say what - Does hell 10 %?

Okay, what'd you say, Jamie? I said, does it say precisely exactly what it is that qualifies one to be the chosen one or the saved one or whatever?

We're not qualified by anything. That's rejected in James 2, 2 through 4.

He does not choose us based on any foreseen quality at all. He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we would be holy and blameless before him.

And he predestined us as adoption. So election and predestination go before us, but he does not look into the future to see who's gonna believe in him or what good quality or anything.

Yeah, I don't like that thing too, but what about looking forward to see who would respond? No one's gonna respond.

Does that - What do you mean? No, no, no, think. If he looks in the future to see who's gonna respond, it implies

God learning, for one thing. That's a problem. And furthermore, if it means that he's going to consider his election based on whether they're gonna believe or not, then his choice is not independent.

His choice is contingent on other things and it violates God's sovereignty and his own will.

Oh, this is what it says. It would mean God's choices depend upon man's choice. That's not how it works.

You're saying he'd be subject to whatever's causing a given potential world to be what it is.

No, I don't wanna say, I see what you're saying. I don't like the word subject because I wouldn't agree with that, but I - No, I know what you're saying. But yeah, and so what it would be saying is that God's choices would then be dependent upon the choices made by others.

And that violates certain ideas, which would mean that God's choice, he sees that you're gonna believe in the future, so he's gonna choose you now.

Because - I've never liked that. I'm not a Calvinist, but I agree with you. This is the problem, seeing potential worlds, but like, who's the

God that made up that world for him to choose from if it's not him? And so there's issues there, for sure. Yeah, this is called ultimate causation.

This is why it's important to be able to study this stuff because it does make sense when you study ultimate causation, proximate and efficient.

A lot of things clear up because if you think about it, if I had a piece of paper, say the screen was a piece of paper and I've done this before when

I teach and it's a white piece of paper and then the dot is God and all the white is nothing.

And I draw a line, a squiggly line, and each squiggly line means it's a possible world that could occur with all the events.

And I could draw so many out that eventually there's no white space left. Well, this means, we would just say, let's say there was a million lines that could be drawn out, hypothetically, just to use a number.

Well, this means of all the potential realities that exist, God is bringing in an actuality.

This means that even in people's free will choices, they could only have a free will choice in here if God brings that actuality into place where he desires that.

This is what we mean by ordination. If God ordains this and he brings it about because it can't be any other way.

And so this is why I say to people, it gets more complicated and sometimes you do have to discuss these things in a more complicated way.

I'm sorry, but it's necessary. Yeah, because I struggle with the idea of there not being some kind of libertarian free will, but I see problems with both sides.

It just seems like, I feel like, problematic for like justice or whatever. Like if there's like, if God has,

I mean, I don't know, he is at fault, I guess. He is responsible, I mean, for everything. Yeah, he ultimately, there you go.

Ultimately, he's responsible for everything. Approximately, he put everything together, but efficiently, we're the ones responsible for our own choices.

This is why, for example, when it goes to, where is it?

David, I can't remember the exact references. The anger of a God incited

David to number Israel. This is 2 Samuel, I think, and Chronicles.

The anger of God incited David to number Israel. Oh, yes, yes, yes.

And then in verse 10, David's the one who sinned. And you go, wait a minute, how does that work?

So what we do as Calvinists is we go, well, let's work through this. We don't wanna go too far. But see, in Arminian, what's an

Arminian gonna say? Well, it's just his free will. Magic free will, it comes from nowhere. Exactly.

It's arbitrary or determined. There you go. There you go. The will of man is either arbitrary, dependent upon himself and his arbitrary whims, or it's ultimately determined.

Well, people say, well, that's compatibilism. No, then you're not free to be choosing, but you are. And the proof

I have of this is Jesus, who had free will. John 5, 19, Jesus said this, truly, truly,

I say to you, the son can do nothing of himself unless it is something he sees the father doing.

Now, what does that mean? That's an interesting question, but okay. And then in verse 30, I can do nothing of my own initiative.

As I hear, I judge. My judgment is not just. So he's saying he does everything that the father's will is, which means that the son, in the eternal sense, the eternal sonship of Christ says, it has always been that the ordination of God's work for Christ to do everything he did,

Christ did, because that's what exactly was ordained by God the father, yet Jesus had free will and is compatible with God's predestination and ordination.

Amen. I agree. I think you have to have God having all knowledge of all time in his head, all at once.

Here's another question. We just talked about this. This is kind of another point of why things sometimes take a lot of discussion.

Why is it God knows everything? Now there's discussions about this. He knows everything future as well as past and present because he's whatever that means outside of time.

Does it mean that God's omniscience depends upon his omnipresence? I like that one.

Yeah, it seems to me. Well, here's the thing. If nothing exists except God and there's no other,

God has omniscience. If he's to create the universe and his omniscience is to be retained, then he must be everywhere all the time.

That's a good point. Which means that when he creates the universe, the past, present, and future, this is where it gets weird, have to always be known by God eternally.

It would imply that he's present in all of it at the same time. Yeah, that's a great point.

I never thought about it that way, but that makes total sense. Like if he's actually the creator and he's outside, above, around, all of that,

I mean, it wouldn't exist if he's not upholding it. And so you must know it by the fact that it exists.

Right, and it only exists because it's his will that it exists. And it's his will that inside that particular existent line that the fall occurs and we have debates and discussions and disagreements and the car crashes and whatever.

It's all within the will of God. And yet, our free will is involved in it. And yet, how does all that work?

This is where we say, well, I don't know. Exactly. I think people should be more, I mean, a lot of people are really, just really upset when they first understand when they're not

Calvinist or they didn't come up in a Calvinist church and then they find out the differences and it sounds so stark and people are just really like gung -ho against it.

And I've just come to realize that it's, there's problems either way. So I try to -

Well, here's what I say. The reason I'm a Calvinist, I say, is because it answers most of the questions, has the least problems.

It doesn't say it doesn't have any. Yeah, it just depends on where you're coming from, right? I look at it like, Calvinists are more concerned and rightly so about God's, kind of like God's power and sovereignty.

And then the free will side is more concerned about His holiness and His love, but not that anybody denies either of the other side, but it's a reference, right?

But if you look at God's omniscience and omnipotence that are simultaneous with His knowledge, that it has to be that all things are foreordained.

Yeah, they are. They are, obviously. He knew, He has to know. And if it's all foreordained, then

Christ is coming to get the elect. The ones that were chosen. It makes perfect sense.

All right, you're moving me a little bit. I'll give you that. I'll let somebody else ask their question.

Thanks, man. That was interesting. It's fun, yeah. Those are good questions.

I got an opportunity to post some links, topical links to some of those questions.

If people wanna go back later and take their time with their Bible open to examine some of those articles, they'll find it worthwhile indeed.

Let me tackle this innovation. In Matthew 11, 21, Jesus says, "'Tyrant Sidon would have repented long ago.

"'So were they elect, "'because how can a non -elect person repent "'unless this is talking about "'general nonspecific repentance?'

That's a very good question. And all sides debate this. Now, I think that there's some verses that are easier on the

Arminian side than the Calvinist side and vice versa. And I think this, and I've said this before, I think this is one that is easier on the

Arminian libertarian side. Not that it's perfect, because, well, if they'd had this information, it's all they needed, they would have believed, right?

But that doesn't really answer all the questions because God has to grant that they believe because they can't come to Christ unless it's been granted and all this stuff.

So it doesn't answer every question. But on the surface, it looks like it'd be Arminianish.

But on the reform perspective, what would we say? He would have repented. Now, it doesn't say that the repentance would have been of their own free will, okay?

And that's a question you have to ask. Do you accept middle knowledge? I think Calvinists should for texts like this.

No. Do you mind describing that? Or I don't care, you don't have to.

Yeah, let's go to middle knowledge and I'll read off my notes on Karm. What is middle knowledge?

Because it gets complicated. And here's the thing.

Middle knowledge deals with the issue of what a person would have done given a different circumstance.

Now, here's the question to ask about middle knowledge. Is such a, let's call it a potential, a potentiality that they would have chosen

A instead of B given different set of circumstances? Well, questions.

If given a different set of circumstances, they would have chosen A instead of B, then every time they get the same circumstances, are they always gonna choose

A? That sounds determined. Because then it sounds like determinism.

But wait a minute, but then how are they free? Okay, but if they're gonna choose the same thing given the exact same circumstances and they're free, then if they're not, then it suggests that something in their will is arbitrary.

And it suggests that there's something about that. What does that mean? That they don't have any reason.

And so this becomes very difficult to discuss and to get into. And it's these kinds of things that I was talking to AK about that sometimes it takes, you really have to get down and discuss these things in other areas.

I'm not trying to be heady. And if you don't do it, you can't understand the advanced stuff. But this is the kind of stuff we talk about.

Well, let's get back to the middle knowledge. So what they'll do in different circumstances. Well, here's another problem with this.

The reason they would do something in a different circumstance is because God would have ordained that circumstance with that result.

So it can't be that God has knowledge of what they would do independently because they can't do it unless God's ordained that they would do it anyway.

So it's not, hey, there's this arbitrary kind of a thing out there. And the human free will is kind of independent of everything, non -contingent, which is why

I was focusing on that earlier. And so therefore they're able to make a choice that doesn't make me anything. God has to sit there and say in a bad analogy, okay, what are they gonna do?

Where do they go? Oh, now that's what they're gonna do. Yeah, you don't wanna go that route because that would have a lot of learning. Right, and so you see why middle knowledge has serious problems to it.

Well, yeah, see, it appears to me that, if I look at it from a Calvinist point of view, whatever, just to be precise or whatever, it seems like a problem because God's ordaining everything more obviously,

I guess, in that system. And so like, what would be the point of middle knowledge be? That's like a non, it's like a pointless even idea, really, because God's ordaining everything, at least usually, right?

But then if God, but so then at the same time, though, I imagine you guys wouldn't wanna say that God couldn't make claims such as, if this, then that, of course he can know that.

So you don't wanna not affirm that idea. So yeah, I see there's this kind of tension on both sides. And so there's some other issues here.

Let me see if I can bring up my notes. This is where we get into the issue of ultimate causation, proximate causation and efficient causation.

Yes, I knew you were gonna say that. Yeah, and when we do this, and I talk about this, the thing

I worry about is people are gonna think, Matt is just, he can't handle it. So he's saying some big words that kind of confuse stuff.

It's not the case. See, we talk about this.

See, ultimate cause is the foundation of the event. Let's just say, and I'm going from my notes.

I'm gonna put it in here, okay? This is my notes, all right? So ultimate cause is the foundation of an event.

God created the universe and it provided the foundation upon which and within which an event will occur, all events.

He is the initial cause of all things. God is the ultimate cause. Now, proximate cause, okay?

Condition of the event. God created Bob and put him in a particular place and time.

God is the proximate cause because he established the condition in which Bob can perform an action.

Then we get into - That's like permissive kind of idea? Well, let's not go there yet.

I'll go there yet, okay? And then efficient cause is the agent of the event.

Bob stole the money from Frank. Bob is the efficient cause because he is the agent of the cause and is morally responsible for his action, not

God. So when we get into the issue of wills, we have to talk about this.

There's what's called the prescriptive, excuse me, the decretive will.

God has a will. I can find, I'll just put it, talk about it. God decrees, let there be light.

Boom, it occurs. The prescriptive will, a prescription. God says, thou shalt not lie.

The permissive will, God permits you to violate the prescriptive will. Now, here's what's interesting.

God wills that you don't lie. He wills that you are to lie. He doesn't cause you to lie, but it's the will of God to permit you to lie.

So ultimately, it's a causal chain from God, but it's an allowance kind of thing.

Right, and the will to permit you rests in the proximate causation. Right, like secondary causation kind of thing.

Yes, it's kind of like that. So the circumstances that are around that enables a person to make a decision that is sinful and rebellion means it has to do with the efficient cause and it has to do with the proximate cause.

I mean, the efficient cause and God's permissive will. Now, I'm gonna say something here.

People think that when I talk like this, I'm just trying to, some people think, oh, you're trying to be impressive. You're bragging.

You're just using too much philosophy, you know, whatever. No, these are the discussions that theologians have had for a long time trying to figure things out.

Yeah, these are big reformation ideas, right? Yeah, because these are real things you have to wrestle with in scripture. How does it work?

And it's not us making stuff up. It's working through it. And so that's why I tell people, sometimes you really have to get down and dirty with this stuff.

And then they say, oh, you can't answer the question. They don't understand enough to build understanding.

They don't know enough. And I don't know what I mean, but you know. It's a distinctions matter. Look at this, the secret.

Oh, well, he was in, Corey was in. He can come back in if he wants. The secret will that Calvinists were

Gnostically informed of as a Norse. See, that is, it's not, see, you're not even a

Calvinist and you're laughing because you know that's not what we teach. It's just ridiculous.

Yeah, I like to just kind of lay it open and see everybody just be honest, not defensive.

Just, it can get interesting. I like different ideas. I've had hundreds of hours of discussions of this.

It doesn't mean I have all the answers. It doesn't mean I'm right. But I'm telling you, I have gone through this and I see how things interrelate.

And when I teach studies, I teach them sometimes on a basic level. Then I'll teach them on a deeper level.

Sometimes I'll say, you really want to get down deep? Let's go down deep here. And I had people, I do this every now and then, the second and third level.

And I've had people literally, this happened a month ago here in the Bible study I teach at the house, talking about this kind of stuff.

And I had one woman go, you just blew my mind like four times. I laughed because we're going through all this.

I was going through it slowly and relating everything to scripture. And they're like, I had no idea this stuff was in there.

I go, it's right there. You just got to see it. Yep. It's amazing. When you see those little things like that here and there, it really builds your faith.

When you see like the things that God seemed to make, just the way things are interconnected is really a big force of my faith anyway.

I mean that. That's why I'm more and more reformed as I get older. Okay, Corey, try it again.

Okay. First Thessalonians 4 .3. It is stated that it is the will of God that Christians not commit fornication.

Now you say everything that happens is the will of God. So what secret knowledge do you have that the rest of us do not have?

This is not a command, it's a will. It's God's stated will. What do you mean by secret knowledge?

You say everything that happens is God's will. Did you not? You've said that within the last 10 minutes, correct? Ephesians 1 .11,

God works all things after the counsel of his will. Yes, he works all things, not determines all things.

He works all things. No, he works all things after the counsel of his will. Yeah. Do you believe that? Yes, I do. So you're, now we're getting off topic.

So 1 Thessalonians 4 .3. We're told the will of God and the letters to Christians is that Christians not commit fornication.

We know that that doesn't always happen. So when a Christian commits fornication, is that the ultimate will of God or not?

Define what you mean by ultimate will. Let's see if you understand what it is. Is it God's will in any way, shape, or form that that Christian committed that fornication?

Of course. You said in any way, shape, or form. The answer has to be in any way, shape, or form. Okay, okay, okay.

So hold on, let me get to him. Go ahead. So the Bible, the Bible tells us one thing is the will of God.

And now you're telling me, no, no, no, no, no, no. When it happens, that's the will of God. Where does that knowledge come from?

Because it doesn't come from scripture. John, Ephesians 1 .11. He works all things after the counsel of his will.

He works all things. Let me ask you. He works all things. Can I ask a question here?

So he works all things. Does all thing include murder and rape? It means he works all things.

Yeah, so out of a hate - Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on. I'm asking you questions.

What does it mean that he works all things according to his will? What does it mean? It means exactly what it says.

He works all things. So he brings his will about - What does it mean? I'm trying to tell you. He brings his will about even in that heinous act.

So - Is it the will of God to permit someone to murder? Is it the will of God to permit someone?

In the sense that he allows it, but that's not his - Is it his will to allow it?

See, now we're moving the goalposts. Is it his - No, I'm not. This is what I've always taught. I'm not, no.

He will to allow it. No, Corey, you're not understanding what I'm teaching. I've always taught this. Is it his will to permit it?

He permitted it. Is it his will to permit it? If you want to move the goalposts and say that, sure.

That's not what - I'm not moving the goalposts. That's not what - You are. I'm asking you, does

God will to permit, his own will, is it his own will to permit someone to do something bad?

If he allows it. Does God will to allow it? Well, you can say that about anything.

But we're in the context of Thessalonians 4 .3. Corey, is it in the will of -

Corey, Corey. Is it in the will of God to allow someone to do something bad? Sure, he allows, he permits many things.

But now listen, Calvinism, he doesn't permit. Remember that, he doesn't permit. There is no permission. So when you use the word -

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What? What are you talking about? The college, there is no permission? What? Well, not according to John Calvin.

So - Okay, wait. I don't know what you're talking about. Dude, permit, no permission. What does that mean? It means he doesn't permit anything.

He ordains all things. Whatsoever comes to pass. Oh, that's a mixed bag on scholarship and Calvinism as far as I can tell.

Okay, now it's John Calvin. Yeah, well, we don't always believe - Okay, so -

Hey, Corey, Corey, Corey. We don't, all Calvinists don't agree with everything John Calvin said.

Okay, but to act like I'm absurd because I, and misrepresent, misrepresenting Calvinism -

Corey, Corey, Corey. For saying something that John Calvin said is disingenuous. Corey, you're talking to me.

So discuss it with me. Okay, so in the context of 1 Thessalonians 4 .3,

in this context only, is it God's will for a Christian to commit fornication or not?

What do you mean by his will? What kind of will? Permissive, decretive, or prescriptive? This is the problem.

The Calvinists break down all these, all these wills. This is the problem that you are - This is the problem, Corey, Corey, Corey, Corey.

The problem is that you're ignorant of theology. No, no, I believe the Bible. No, Corey, Corey, Corey, Corey, Corey, Corey.

You're ignorant. And you want to boast as though you know what you're talking about. You want to say you just believe the Bible. You've already admitted that Ephesians 1 .11

says that God works all things after the counsel of his will. I asked you what it means to work all things.

And you said, well, it's what it means. You didn't explain anything. We finally got you to admit though that God permits, it's his will to permit that people do bad things.

Your problem is that you're an arrogant fool who is trying to raise your own will above God's and God's sovereignty.

You don't even know enough to know that. That's how ignorant you are. You don't know about the decreed, prescriptive, permissive will in theological terms.

You don't know about the issue of God's efficient causation, our efficient causation related to the proximate cause, the ultimate cause.

You don't have knowledge of these things. And you want to start telling how Calvinists aren't right. When we quote the scriptures to you, like I do

Ephesians 1 .11, you argue with it. You've got to make it say something else in order to argue against Calvinism.

You're the one who's arguing against the word of God, not me. Did someone kick him?

He probably left. Hey Matt, did you see the debate between, I believe it was Light and Flowers and it was in Johnston Pritchard versus like Sonny and I forget the other guy's name.

Okay, no, I didn't see it. Oh man, you got to see that one. Sonny, I guess he's a very, very,

I don't know, maybe you could call him hyper -Calvinist. If you could call anybody a hyper -Calvinist, I suspect it would be him. But at a certain point he got very,

I mean, they were very amicable. He said, God makes people or if God wants you to commit adultery,

God will make you commit adultery. I was just blown away. That would mean God is the efficient cause.

Oh, I know. Efficient causation is moral responsibility. God wouldn't make you commit adultery. He wouldn't do that. Yeah, he literally said that.

And then like saying as a rebuttal to what they were saying from the other side. I would jump in on that and just say, come on, man.

Yeah, it seems like the scholars are mixed on the permission thing. I mean, I've heard John MacArthur and many other prominent

Calvinist speakers use the permission idea. And then I've heard other Calvinists say, or maybe

I can't remember which scholar I've heard say, we shouldn't say that or whatever. Right, you gotta be careful how you say things and you need to be gracious in the wording.

I try and be gracious, but I'll tell you the anti -Calvinists, man, they're like rabid dogs.

Now, like you, for example, you're not a rabid dog. You're not a Calvinist, but you're not an anti -Calvinist. You'll discuss, you'll say, well,

I don't agree. Okay, that's fine. Let's go have lunch together, talk about something else.

That's how I feel about it. But we don't get that. What's that, what?

As I've gotten older and older, charity is a beautiful thing. It is, it is.

I've never been a Calvinist and you're still like me, so I feel special. You're not a Calvinist? He's not a

Calvinist. I've never claimed to be, and I don't ever... I don't ever intend to wear the label of Calvinist.

I thought he was. My theology is flavored by the

Reformation. Okay. See how important it is to me? I thought he was, but I don't even know.

And you know what? I'm more than that. I don't care. And I'm on your board of directors, so.

Yeah, he is. He's on the board of directors, of course. Because he knows how prejudiced you are, huh? Yeah, that's right. I think

I remember about it as about a hundred years ago. I mean, do you have any reservations about hell? About hell? Sorry. No, about the

L and two of it all? Is that? I hear people say that. No, I'm more concerned about the

L. Oh yeah. I am so convinced of L. It makes so much sense. Yeah, you talk about that a lot, actually.

It makes perfect sense. I mean, come on. He paid for your sins. What does it mean to pay for your sins? It means the debt's paid.

If you have a, you know, you and I go out to lunch, you buy me lunch and you forget your wallet and I pay it, it's paid. The debt doesn't exist anymore.

Right? That's how it works when somebody pays. Right. Wasting his blood, right? On any non, like, like James White says, wringing his hands going, oh,

I hope somebody takes advantage of this. Uh -huh. That's what, that's what there are many of the times.

Prevenient grace. Yeah. And Jesus did equate sin with legal debt.

Yeah. I just posted the links to a couple of articles where you go through that very carefully and a very balanced presentation.

And it makes good sense. Makes good sense when you look at the attendant scriptures with your Bible open, as you go through these,

I think you did a fair job. He says, our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

Forgive us our sins. And I think it's Matthew 6, 12, which is, I can't get, been a while since I've talked about it.

Sin is armatia. And the other one, Matthew and Luke 11, 2, 11, 3.

I got to go back and review. Forgive us our debts, of ofilema, legal debt.

So Jesus equates sin with legal debt. Yeah. Yeah. But what's the language about, you know, asking for forgiveness of sins after the fact, if they're paid for, like in a legal definite sense, they're wiped out.

That's a good question. That's a good question. If all of our sins are paid for and forgiven, past, present, and future, then when we sin, should we ask forgiveness for sin?

Seems to me that the obvious answer is yes. And, you know, it's, you could make the case.

Well, we shouldn't because it's already been forgiven. So we're saying it's not forgiven if we want to be forgiven. Yeah. That's what

I'm fearful about, not necessarily agreeing totally with that, that there's not some nuance to the idea that it's potential in some sense.

But I mean, you know, but I, you know, I'm open to learning new things. Yeah. What I think is, yeah, you should ask for forgiveness of your sins because you just sinned and yet, you know, it's called the now and the not yet.

You know, Jesus paid for it all. It's all taken care of. But when you mess up, confess it. Be an advocate in heavenly places.

We're the fathers. Yeah. And so, yeah, it's in Matthew 6, 12, it's

Ophilema and Luke 11, 4, it's forgive us our debts,

Ophilema in Matthew 6, 12, and then Luke 11, 4, forgive us our sins, hermartia.

So Jesus equates sin with legal debt. Well, you know, it seems to me a lot of evangelicals or whatever you want to call them, you know,

I have a different background a little bit, but I think kind of focus so much on the cross and I'm not, please don't misunderstand me, trying to have charity with what

I'm saying here, what I mean, at least, but like they don't consider, you know, there's still stuff to happen, you know, that God's doing in the sense that, you know, if you focus too much on it's all done at the cross, which it is, by the way, but I mean, we're still here and we're still sinning and we still die and there's a timeline here.

It just seems like there must be some reason God allows sins to still occur, even though it's all paid for.

Right. And so there's interesting questions you can ask about that and potential answers to that question.

And I like a theodicy that kind of has that in mind. Right. Oh, this was fun.

So, well, okay, so you're not reformed. Okay, that's fine. You don't remember me, do you?

What's that? You don't remember who I am, do you? No. I was on a couple of days ago, we got into it, about soul sleep.

Oh, you're James. Yeah, I'm the one that's moving. Yeah, I sold the house. I'm moving to Idaho, yeah. Where, Idaho?

What, Bonner's Ferry. Bonner's Ferry? 10 minutes from the

Canadian border on the panhandle. Okay, okay. All right, yeah. Yeah, we talked like four times in the last month, maybe.

Well, you gotta remember, it's nothing personal. I just don't remember names very well. Yeah, no problem.

I talk to so many people, my brain just gives up trying to remember it. Yeah, I get a little zesty sometimes.

I mean, I think the last time I went back and listened to the conversation because some of my friends were looking at it or whatever on their live streams and critiquing it or whatever.

We talked about Corinthians, 1 Corinthians, you know, the whole whether out of the body or not or whatever.

Uh -huh. And I went back and listened to it and noticed it wasn't quite like I remembered it. I was a little bit more of a being triggered than I thought.

That's right, whatever. No big deal, we all do that. But that's what it says, you know, 2

Corinthians 12. I think it's a very powerful verse. And I'm gonna be interviewed regarding this topic basically tomorrow.

Oh really, cool. Yeah. And I'll be naming names probably, you know, but the idea that a human soul ceases to exist is damnable heresy because it means that Jesus, a human soul, spirit, whatever you wanna call it, ceased to exist, which denies the hypothetic union.

And - Yeah, I'm starting to understand it more now, but - Yeah, it's a serious problem. So that needs to be abandoned.

If they wanna go to soul sleep, it's still serious, but not as serious. I'm looking into that one at a time.

Yeah, yeah, I'll be interested to watch that. I know you might wanna check out on Rethinking Hell.

It's like the last uploaded podcast there to talk about some of the papers that they discussed some of their papers and, you know, critique or whatever to some degree,

Chris Dade and two other fellows from the Ministry of Rethinking Hell that's on there. You might be interested to hear it or not.

I got too much to do. I am working on redoing the schools. If I had nothing new to do,

I probably, and this is not an exaggeration, I probably, nothing new. I could just do what

I gotta do now. I could probably be done in five years. That's an honest, I'm serious.

It's not a video, if that helps. You can listen to it while you're taking a shower or whatever, mowing the lawn maybe. Yeah, but it just, someone was watching one of them that they did and said it wasn't very well done and stuff.

I know that my articles are causing a bit of a problem with them, and I'm glad because I really believe annihilationism is false.

But there's some issues that I don't believe they can properly answer. But this is - All physicians are a little bit early, at least potentially.

It seems to me there are, like, no matter what. I'm sorry, what? You saw my dad's got the

TV up so loud. You're muffled, you're muffled, you're muffled. It seems like there's problems no matter what view you take with the atonement and the lost and the saved and the payment and all those issues.

Well, I thought, okay, you switched topics, but everything has problems.

Nothing has every single answer to everything, but reformed theology has the least amount of problems.

And annihilationism causes problems. It brings up and invents problems that don't need to be there.

Well, it is easy on the definition. That, like, if you take the definition, just take four and then you consider all.

We don't have to talk about it. Yeah, that's right. That's right. I did a lot of work on annihilationism, but the most important issue right now within its doors is the issue of if Christ, human nature, ceased to exist, that's damnable heresy.

I mean, you can't call a brother, a guy a brother in Christ who holds to that, okay?

Now, I think that Chris Dait needs to repent. Glenn, people need to repent, because I understand maybe I'm wrong.

And if I am wrong, and I'll apologize publicly, that I'd misunderstood them. But what I've studied, it certainly seems to be the case that they both teach that.

And if they do, then I can't call them brothers in Christ. That's very honest.

I'd just love to see you guys interact a little bit. I know you guys can do it. Yeah, we could, but you can understand.

I believe this about Chris, that he's very secure, very sure, and he has a reputation to uphold.

And if he's gonna wanna debate me, he's gonna wanna do it on his terms, the way it's worked. And I'm not gonna play that game, because he and I tried to work out a debate title years ago, a couple, three years ago, whatever it was.

And it was very difficult to work with him to get an answer and to work on something. I'm not gonna play, put all the cards on his deck kind of a thing.

And this issue of, you're kidding me. I remember finding out, what? Anybody who holds to the idea that the soul, human soul ceases to exist is a problem.

You see, I'm not gonna convince Chris or Glenn that their position's wrong. But what I can do is write 180 some odd articles that'll give them a hard time and cause others to have problems about that position.

And I move on to other stuff. I don't wanna sit there and dedicate my life to refuting something like this that I think is causing a division in the body of Christ.

And so I got more important things to do. And maybe if he wants to get down to the real nitty gritty of the issues of this thing, because I'll debate first, the annihilation of the human nature of Christ, that's a serious, serious heresy.

And they need to repent of it flat out. And if they don't repent of it, then we cannot call them brothers in Christ.

Furthermore, if they don't repent of it and continue to defend a very blatantly bad error, how can you trust their judgment, rationalization, anything else?

Because I could not call them Christians, but if they're not Christians, I'm not trying to judge them,

I can't call them that, then where are they getting this other information from? It really causes some serious ramifications in here.

Are they getting any demonic influence? Because anyone who would say, yeah, the human nature of Jesus ceased to exist, it is such a damnable heresy.

And what Christians need to do is go, hey, you're right, that is bad. We didn't take it through. You're right, thanks for correcting us on that.

But we still believe in annihilationism. Well, okay, then they move ahead. But the human nature though, from that view is like, you could argue that the human nature is in the body.

Seems like - If that's the case, there's other problems. There's other problems with that. If the human nature is in the body and the body dies and the human nature ceases to exist, and then you still have the breaking of the hypothetic.

Because you're making the nature not necessarily a part of the physical, but it seems like that's all caught up in the difference in definitions there.

But I don't know. Yeah, there's problems, okay? So, yeah.

Well, I'll tell you one more thing, real quick. I, one time I told Chris, I said, was

I asked him about annihilationism because that was my view of just growing up or whatever. That's what I was taught.

But I said, he's always wanting to give charity to the other side.

But I said, it seems to me that if our view of death is correct in as far as the nature of man and how he lives or dies, because our definition is very different.

Like, if we're right, and what they believe about Christ, quote unquote, dying, would mean that they don't actually have him actually dying.

And like, from my point of view, that feels like a big problem or a potential issue. No, no, no, no, no. You have to understand how

God means death. Right, and that's what he said. He stuck up for your side in the sense that he said, well, no, because they're defining death in their way and they're being consistent with it.

And I said, yeah, I guess you're right. I shouldn't call them not brothers because it's a fundamental definitional difference.

And as long as they're being true to the Bible or trying to be, you know, I think that's fair. They're trying to be, but annihilationism is not the biblical position.

And yeah, okay, it's not. All right, thanks. I gotta get going. Have a good night.

God bless. Okay, you too. God bless everybody. Hey, it was fun. And oh, wait, wait, before we go,

I didn't even get to ask, what'd you guys think of our discussion with AK? It'll be another couple, three, four minutes, but I wanna hear what you guys think.

Just type it in and what you thought and stuff like that. And then we'll go, you know, whatever. I thought it went well.

Oh, there we go, I felt good. And then I'm gonna go check on my wife.

I thought it was a decent discussion. AK's a nice guy, but a couple of his views about what you believe are not really what you believe.

And that's unfortunate, but if he examines it closer, then he'll get a more fair representation of what it is you're presenting.

And he's certainly bright enough to catch on and make a more accurate representation.

Yeah. It's because of faith in Christ alone, not faith in baptism. There you go.

I think that church of Christ doctrine has got him a bit roadblocked.

Yes. It's a baggage he doesn't need to be dragging around with him, yeah.

Richard, sorry, took 3 .5 hours to do a Windows update. Yep, that's a major update. Yep, I'm with you.

So I do them at night and sometimes or I'm watching TV come up. God used Calvinism to bring me out of the oneness moralistic cult.

I don't think GD, God would use a false theologist to save me. You had him questioning some things.

Yeah, there was some times, sir, I thought he was pretty clear with the Aorist passive indicative about Romans 5 .19

because he denies original sin, but he didn't deny it when

I showed him that verse. That stuck with him. And then the same thing, God grants that you believe, which

I think is interesting. He grants that you believe, but you're not really believing? What the

English equivalent in our understanding as an English speaking nation and culture, that what it's saying is it's a done deal.

It's done. It's a done deal. Right. Yeah, that was weak on his side.

Okay, someone wants me to explain my view on a thousand years. A thousand years is used in a figurative context, Revelation 20 verse one, an angel coming out of heaven with a chain and a key, laying hold of the serpent, the dragon.

And so it's figurative usage. And Jesus says that Satan's bound in Matthew 12, 22 through 32 and stuff like that.

So I could get into it another time, but there's this - There's the radio times I've posted if they wanna call in live.

And that's a good question. A lot of people would like to hear that answer. Yes, indeed. Yeah, James Sanborn thought

AK was a somewhat ignorant of reformed faith. I would agree. So Matt, did you put a crack in AK's wall?

I think I did with Romans 519 and Philippians 129. I think that first one shook him up because you guys remember he -

I got him to admit original sin from Adam that it occurred just because of Adam, that we are the fallen nature to begin with.

He doesn't believe that, but he had to admit it. I think that's a crack in his wall right there.

One of the - So that's what I think. Okay, I'm out of here. Hey, you guys,

God bless. All right. God willing, we'll join you tomorrow. Lord willing.