Debate: Matt Slick vs Jesse Morrell, The nature and extent of the atonement

Two minutes and 13 seconds. We're gonna miss it by one whole second of totality. See the cats?

I keep them out of the office here because they get behind me. I'll be debating, teaching. They start coming up and they, you know, they're super friendly.

And I'm calling one of the cats Mr. Needy because he always needs to be petted. They're all, they're huge too.

I could get our big cat and bring him in here. He's like 20, 25 pounds.

You can travel down to Cascade. Okay, cool. No, no, no.

The duration, two minutes and 12 seconds is how long the total eclipse will be where we are.

Textual plus, what is that? Gotta look that up now. Tap T -O -X -O -P -L -A -S.

Hey! There you are. Hi, thank you. Okay, yeah, so I think

Safari was my problem the whole time. Getting Google Chrome fixed that.

Actually, he told me that at the beginning. That's what I said at the beginning, but oh well. All right, good.

Well, I've never done a Google Hangout before, so I guess I'm late to this party. That's all right.

Not a big deal. We're just blabbing and stuff like that, so you can hear me okay, right? Yeah. Okay.

Where do you see comments and people? If you wanna see what people are saying, let me give you the link to that.

And it'll be in the text here. Oh, it's already right there. I'll redo it. And you can put it in another browser.

In the right. Do you see the text on the right? Yeah, there it is.

Okay. I need to use the restroom. It's been an hour since we've been.

Yeah, go ahead. Be back in a sec. But then we can go over the format really fast. I'll be right back.

Don't know if you can see the chat, Jesse, but that's basically the outline. I just posted in there for you.

Yeah, this is the chat that's on the YouTube video? No, the chat on the Google Hangouts. You should have a little chat icon.

Okay. There you go. Perfect.

Well, at least we're glad you're here anyway. It proves that you're obviously predestined to be here. Yeah, I guess we were predestined to have problems.

Well, it is granted to you to suffer. Yeah, well, a little bit of perseverance, free will got me through it.

Yeah. I think we saw where your free will got. Okay.

I've just posted the link on my Facebook. See if some people will join. Did you post the?

I posted the YouTube link. Yeah, okay, that's good. We're just gonna keep this between you and Matt so no one interferes.

Yes. All right. So it's about 8 .54

here. Okay. You can get started whenever.

So let me go over a couple of things. Cy, you're gonna have admin, so if you go into the chat area of the, where people watch.

Let's say someone is becoming insulting for whatever reason. Just, you know, they're being a troll. You can right mouse click on their name and boot them or just put your mouse over to the right.

You should be able to just get rid of them. You can click something and hit report, remove, you know, various things.

So that's it. Yeah, you can do it. Yeah, it's, I believe you can since you have the access.

We should have gone over this earlier. Not in this room that all three of us are in, but in the live viewing one.

To the right. Okay, so you see the three dots that are next to people's names. You put your mouse over and you'll see that.

It just says go to channel and report. That's all you have? Yeah. Type something in the room.

And let me get your name and see if I can give you admin, whatever. Oh, Charlie's in there.

He's got it. Okay, no sweat. Charlie will watch it. Okay. Okay, good.

So I think I made you a moderator in there too, but Charlie's fine. He's good. He'll just watch it. All right, so what we're talking about is a five minute opening.

You're supposed to go first, Jesse, and I'm not a legalist, so five minutes, seven minutes, eight minutes, whatever.

And I may go equally or not or whatever. And then we're talking about three questions each.

And that's the only thing to really talk about. Say you ask me a question, I can respond for three minutes.

Do you want to be able to respond to that for one? That's a lot of, a lot of debates are done like that. And then

I can't respond to you after that. It's the next question. And then when

I ask you a question, you can respond for three minutes and then I can respond for one. Then we go to the next question.

And then that's just one way to do it. And then we can just have an open discussion for say a half hour.

We just go back and forth and we're both polite enough to be able to have a discussion and it can be moderated by, what's his name?

There, Sai, sorry. And then five -ish minutes just close -ish. What do you think? I think that's perfect.

Might be fine. Okay. And also, because I'm able to do this, mute myself and I have a speech recognition program.

So if you see me talking while you're talking, it is not to distract you.

It's because I use a speech program. I've typed so many words over the years that I have carpal tunnel a little bit.

So - Taking notes, yeah. That's what I do. So it's not meant to distract you or anything like that.

It's just what I do. Okay? Perfect. Just give me a second here and I think

I'll be ready. Okay, no rush. And what I'll do is, if you don't mind,

I'd like to open up in prayer or have Sai open up in prayer, if that's okay. Yeah, that'd be good. You wanna do that,

Sai? Yep, sure. Okay, when he's ready and we'll just jump in. As long as you don't mind,

I'll be saying it in English. That's good, the King's English? That's right.

Okay. So, Lord, we just thank you for this, Lord. And we thank you for the perseverance and Stephen getting

Jesse through the technical difficulties, Lord, that we can come together, discuss your word. Lord, we just ask that you open our minds, let our hearts be soft enough to be penetrated by the word of God.

And let's put aside our attitudes, our personalities, Lord, and let's just bless this conversation,

Lord, so that we can just be all blessed by it in your name, Jesus. Amen. All right, and so the topic is, of course, the nature and the extent of the atonement.

Are you wanting me to interject when your time's up? Yeah, if you wanna just say five minutes and we're still going, don't worry about it.

We'll just kind of close. Maybe you can just type in there how many minutes or just say at a breath, just say at six minutes.

We'll just kind of note it, just kind of wrap it up. All right? I'm pretty casual about stuff. It doesn't matter to me.

Yeah. Yep, all right. So get started. Okay.

All right, well, let me start by explaining my history with the atonement and my understanding of the nature and extent.

When I first got saved and started to read the Bible, I would read passages about Jesus tasting death for every man and Christ dying for all.

He's the savior of all men, especially in that belief. But I also understood according to the

Bible that people went to hell. And so I understood that the atonement was unlimited for every man, but it was not unconditionally saving.

However, I picked up different cliches, mainly from the influence of Ray Comfort and other people like you broke the law and Jesus paid your fine or Jesus satisfied the wrath of God.

Jesus paid your debt and those sorts of things. And I would go out onto the streets and I would witness to people and I would tell them, you broke the law and I would take them through the law and they would get concerned.

And I said, but here's the good news. Jesus paid your fine. And then the guy would say, this was a guy in New Haven.

He said, well, if Jesus paid my fine, then I'm good. I said, no, you have to believe and you have to repent in order to be saved.

He said, well, why do I have to do that? If Jesus paid my fine, then it's already done. I'm good. I said, yeah, well,

Jesus did pay your fine, but if you don't believe that he paid your fine, then you're gonna have to pay your own fine.

And he said, well, that doesn't make any sense. And I knew in my heart, no, it didn't make any sense. And so I was challenged, but that was the best

I had at the time. So I was challenged to reconsider my atonement view. How could it be that this guy out on the street needs to repent and believe the gospel if the nature of the atonement is what

I presented as Jesus paying his fine? Because his fine would be paid whether he believes it or not, whether he repents or not.

It's already, like he said, a done deal. So I started to really examine what the Bible has to say about the atonement.

So when it comes to the nature and the extent of the atonement, you also have to deal with the necessity for the atonement.

Why did Jesus have to die? In the penal view, all you're told is, well, God is holy and he must punish sin.

And therefore someone has to be punished. And if you're not gonna be punished, then Jesus needs to be punished.

And it's just what I think a very shallow perspective of God's government and the punishment of sin.

And so my understanding of the atonement starts with an understanding of the moral government of God, that the

Bible says that God has a moral government, that Jesus is the head of, it says the government shall be upon his shoulder, and that Jesus is a governor.

And governor, he gave laws, the 10 commandments that we are obligated to obey.

And with law, there must be penalty. God executes the penalty of the law for the purpose of deterring other people from transgressing it.

The Bible says in Ecclesiastes, that if punishment is not swiftly executed, then the hearts of men are fully set within them to do evil.

And the Bible says that God punishes people like Sodom and Gomorrah to be an example onto others.

So penalty is necessary to express the character of God, to deter other people from following in the bad example.

The problem is that forgiveness in its very nature is the non -punishment of sin.

In other words, when the Bible talks about the forgiveness of sin, it means that sin is not being punished.

The problem with that is that the purpose of penalty is then being unfulfilled. That if penalty discourages crime, then the non -execution of penalty would encourage crime.

And that's a governmental problem. And you see that with Darius and Daniel.

Why did Darius put Daniel in the lion's den? Not for any personal reasons, but for governmental reasons.

The same thing with Queen Vashti and the King of Persia.

He had to put away his wife, not for personal reasons, but for governmental reasons. So there's a governmental problem in the forgiveness of sins.

Now, on a biblical understanding, God does not punish sin for personal pleasure.

The Bible says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they would turn and live. But God is under an obligation to uphold his law by justice.

So the atonement is necessary to make a way for God to be just without punishing our sin.

Because when he forgives us, he's setting aside our punishment. Now, in the penal view, which

I used to believe, people say, well, Jesus took our punishment. Well, I never understood that because the punishment we deserve is eternal hell.

The Bible says they shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. And when people would look at the cross and say, oh, that should have been me on the cross, or he took my place on the cross.

I never understood that because God never threatened us with crucifixion. God threatened us with eternal hell.

Is that five minutes? All right, let me wrap this up. So with this understanding that Jesus took our place on the cross, he took our cross,

I was always confused. Well, the way I understand the atonement now is that the atonement substitutes our penalty.

It's not a substitution in penalty, otherwise Christ would have to go to hell forever. But it was a substitute for penalty.

In other words, God accepts the suffering of Christ instead of our damnation.

That he died for our sin, he died as our substitute, but it's a deeper substitution than just a substitute in penalty.

It's a substitution for penalty altogether. And when penalty is substituted by an atonement, then penalty itself can be remitted.

And so there's a real forgiveness of sin that the penalty our sins deserve is actually being remitted by the mercy of God.

So the Bible says Jesus paid our ransom. It doesn't say he paid our debt. It says he paid our ransom.

And now our debt itself can be pardoned. Our debt can be forgiven. Our penalty can be remitted.

Our debt can be canceled. So to sum it up in one sentence, an atonement is a governmental substitution for the penalty of the law that renders the penalty of the law remissible so that God can be just, even though he allows our sins to go unpunished in the forgiveness of sins.

So that five minutes went by fast. Matt? I was gonna say, do you wanna go longer?

I mean, if you need longer. Seriously, don't bother me. No, I mean,

I don't wanna take too long. I can talk for hours on the atonement, but. Well, can I ask you a clarifying question then?

I mean, I know it's only to accurately represent what you said. Yes. That's all.

Atonement is governmental substitution for the law that renders the law. For penalty.

It's a governmental substitution for penalty, the penalty of the law. Oh man, I wanted to get that right because I wanted to represent you properly when

I commented on it. This is what I have. I put that in a text. I know this is not part of our debate.

I'm only trying to represent you. If you wanna correct that, that's fine. If not, I'll just go on without it because that's not,

I mean, if you wanna ask me clarifying questions later too, that's fine. Just to understand, because you said, well, anyway, let me go on.

Let me just start. Okay, here we go. Sorry. My bad. I agree with you that God does not punish a person for his personal pleasure.

I also agree that God is under obligation to uphold his law. He must uphold his law.

There is no law that is not a law without a punishment. All laws have punishments.

If God does not execute the person who breaks the law, then God himself is not holy.

God himself is not right. God himself is not just. So he must execute his judgment upon the law breaker.

Sin is not the thing punished because sin is an abstraction. It's just something we do in our heart.

And he doesn't punish that abstraction. He punishes the person who commits that sin. And if I were to lie, then

I've incurred a punishment. But the thing is Jesus himself equated sin with legal debt.

And he did this, our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

In Matthew 6, 12, he said, forgive us our debts. In Luke 11, four, the parallel, he said, forgive us our sins.

Jesus equated sin with legal debt. And why did he do that? He did that because sin is breaking the law of God.

First John 3, four. Sin is the transgression of the law. If we break the law, there's a penalty upon us.

It's a necessary penalty upon us if we break the law. If God does not punish the law breaker, then

God is unrighteous. So we have a problem. We have a debt. That's why the Bible says,

Jesus says, he equates sin with debt. Now we know that he canceled the debt because it says in Colossians 2, 14, that he canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, which was hostile to us.

He took it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. The word there in Greek, certificate of debt, is a single

Greek word, kerographon, and it only occurs right there. And what that word means is a legal, handwritten

IOU of indebtedness. It's a document that when you write it, when you are there with it, and you sign your name on it, so to speak, you are now legally indebted.

And that's the word that is used, and Paul used it and said, Jesus canceled out this written, this handwritten legal document of indebtedness.

That's what he said. He used that word. So it says, Jesus, in verse 13 of Colossians 2, canceled, or he forgave us all of our sins.

In Colossians 2, 14, having canceled out the certificate of debt, Jesus equates sin with debt, and Paul says

Jesus, excuse me, canceled the certificate of debt. He removed it.

He got rid of it. Now, a lot of people don't know this, but in John 19, 30, Jesus said on the cross, it is finished.

That word, in three words, it is finished is a single Greek word, tetelestai. That word has been found in the bottom of ancient tax receipts, signifying a legal debt that has been paid in full.

Why is this important? Well, this is why. The sufficiency of Christ's blood and the extent of the legal act of his sacrifice are not the same thing.

Christ's blood is sufficient to cover all people, and that's not a problem, but the sufficiency relates to the ability and the value, which is different than the legal debt.

Sin is a legal debt. I've already gone over that in Mark, Matthew 6, 12, and Luke 11, 4. Sin is breaking the law of God, 1

John 3, 4. Legal debts can be transferred. That's the action.

That's the thing we need to understand. A legal debt can be transferred. That's why it says he bore our sins in his body on the cross, 1

Peter 2, 24. The only way that's possible is if the legal debt was transferred to him.

He bore our sin in his body on the cross. That's not possible unless sin is a legal problem, not only a legal problem.

If it's a legal problem and a legal debt, as Jesus equates sin with debt,

Paul equates him canceling the certificate of debt, and sin is a legal debt that's transferred.

It's transferred to Jesus on the cross, 1 Peter 2, 24. Since he bore, he says,

I'm a Calvinist. I only believe he bore the sin of the elect, which answers the objection that your friend you're witnessing to had, and there's ways to answer him.

But nevertheless, it says legal debts can be transferred, and people's sins were transferred to Jesus.

He bore our sin in his body on the cross. Their sin debt was canceled at the cross, not when we believe.

That's critical, Colossians 2, 14. He canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, which was hostile to us.

He took it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. What's going on there is that Paul the apostle says,

Jesus canceled the sin debt at the cross. It's canceled. If it's canceled, it can't exist anymore.

If it's canceled, if it's blotted out, if it's removed, there is no way anybody could be held responsible for sin debt that doesn't exist.

This is why it necessitates limited atonement, because we're talking about the nature and the extent of the atonement, and it necessitates this because of Matthew 25, 46, and Mark 3, 29, people go to hell.

We know that. You can't go to hell if your sin debt is canceled. You can't go to hell if your sin debt doesn't exist.

Remember, Jesus equated sin with debt in our father prayer,

Matthew 6, 12, Luke 11, 4. Paul says our legal debt was canceled at the cross.

It's not canceled when you believe, it's canceled at the cross. I'll tell you what happens when we believe. So our justification is different than Christ's atonement, because the atonement occurred at the cross.

The debt is canceled at the cross, but we're justified when we believe. Justification is the legal standing with God according to the law.

Justification means that we have been declared righteous. Now, here's the key.

In Philippians 3, 9, it says this, that we have a righteousness that's not our own. In moral government theology, the righteousness that you have, and as you've said, and I got a lot of quotes from you in your book, you actually maintain your salvation through your efforts, through what you do.

Your sincerity, your ability, you keep your salvation by what you do. That means it has to be kept according to the law.

Now, Paul says in Romans 3, 28, we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 4, 5, for the one who does not work but believes, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. We receive the righteousness of God by faith.

Romans 3, 28, Romans 5, 1, but Philippians 3, 9 says, we have a righteousness that's not our own.

How is it that we have a righteousness that's not our own? It has to be someone else's.

It's the righteousness of God. It's the righteousness of Christ. He kept the law perfectly. He never sinned, 1

Peter 2, 22. Then he bore our sin. This is what happens. Jesus on the cross, we're here.

When we believe, well, when we believe what happened, so to speak, not the best analogy, his righteousness becomes ours.

Our sin is already his, but that's when we recognize its removal. So Christ canceled the sin debt at the cross before we were alive.

He took our place as Isaiah 53, four through six says. He bore our stripes.

He bore our penalty. That's what it says in Isaiah 53. This is substitutionary.

What else I've been telling you is penal, the law. It's legal. The nature of sin is breaking the law.

Our sin debt is transferred to Christ. He bore our sin, et cetera. This is all legal. Hence the penal, legal, that's penal, the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ.

This is the scriptural view. So logically, Christ only legally bore our sins, the sins of the elect, even though his, excuse me, his blood's sufficient for everybody.

Otherwise we would have universalism, which can't be true. Okay, perfect,

I'll quit at five. I'm just thinking in the name of fairness, let's keep to the same time for both of you guys.

Good, got it. Let's see.

Can you hear me? Yes. I mean, unless you have like a few more important things you need to clarify or anything.

No, it's no biggie. Okay. Okay, so now.

You wanna ask me three questions or you wanna do one each? Whatever you want. Well, I'll ask you three questions one at a time.

Okay, and then I'll ask you three questions one at a time. And which means you ask me a question, I get three minutes to respond.

You get one minute to respond to that. Then we just go to the next question, then we reverse it. Okay. Okay, do we deserve the punishment of eternal hell for our sins?

Yes, we deserve the punishment of eternal hell for our sins. Okay, well, how can it be said

Jesus took our punishment if our punishment is eternal hell? It didn't say our punishment is, you said, do we deserve it?

And the answer, there's a difference between deserving it and what it is. But nevertheless, since Jesus has two natures, both divine and human, he's

God in flesh. Therefore, the sacrifice that he offered is of infinite value. And since he's of infinite value, therefore, when he died on the cross, that he paid the infinite debt, which is equivalent, so to speak, to our infinite time in hell.

Right, so you would say it's equivalent, not identical. Well, yeah, because how do we have equivalence and identicalness?

Because we can get into the idea of X as Y. And if all the attributes of X are equal to all the attributes of Y, then

X is the same as Y. It's equal to Y, they're the same thing. But what we have here is Jesus being divine, he offered us a divine sacrifice.

God, by definition, is of infinite value. Our sin is against the infinitely holy God. Therefore, it incurs an infinite penalty.

This is why when Jesus bore the sins for the elect and our sin would transfer to him legally on the cross, he paid the penalty, bam, we're done.

No problem. But the rest of mankind who doesn't have that covering, they go to hell forever. That's what's necessary.

I have, I mean, I can't, I'm just asking you questions, right? I'm not, I'm not supposed to. It's already free, but technically, but go ahead, ask more questions.

It's all right. Well, that last one. It's all right, no big deal. It wasn't there for clarification. That's fine.

So you would say that the elect are born with their debt already paid. Yes. But not saved yet.

Correct. Okay, and it would be, if it's unjust for God to damn those that Jesus died for, are they not saved then by justice instead of by grace?

I apologize. I'm having trouble understanding your question. No, I'm not kidding. I'm having trouble understanding your question.

Can you say it again? I'm gonna repeat it to my speech program so I can read it, okay? If unjust.

It's unjust. For God to punish those that Jesus died for. Jesus died for. Are they then not saved by justice instead of freely by his grace?

Saved by justice, not freely by his grace. It would be unjust to punish them.

You're saying it's unjust for God to punish those that Jesus died for. Yeah, that would be a double jeopardy, right?

Of course, I agree with you. It would be unjust if he died for and bore the sin of everybody who ever lived, then it would be unjust.

Right, so those who are saved after the atonement are saved by justice, not by grace.

The ones who are saved, the ones who are saved, oh, no, no, no. I don't think you understand the difference between justice, mercy, and grace.

Justice is getting what we deserve. Mercy is not getting what we deserve. And grace is getting what we don't deserve in a good way.

So what happens is God imputed to Jesus at 2000 years ago, the sin of the elect, the ones given to him by the father,

John 6, 38 through 40, their sin debt was canceled at the cross, which is what Colossians 2, 14 tells us.

Then when we are later on, when we're born, my sin debt was already canceled, but I'm not justified until I believe.

So we're born elect, Jesus paid for our sin debt back then. And then when we believe, that's when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.

Okay, it's only for the elect. Right. That's my position. I have tons of questions, but I know we're supposed to ask three, so you can ask me some.

Okay, and then we'll probably just go back and forth, do the same thing again here a little bit, that's okay. All right, so Colossians 2, 14.

If you want me to paste it in, I can, or I can quote it to you again, probably if I paste it in, it might be better, because the question

I'm gonna ask you is, is this, what exactly did

Jesus cancel on the cross according to Colossians 2, 14? And there it is in the text chat on the right, whatever version you wanna use, but there it is.

What's exactly, excuse me, what exactly did Jesus cancel on the cross according to Colossians 2, 14?

Look it up here. That's okay, no rush. Yeah, well, the

King James says, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.

I've always read that verse in understanding that it's talking about the old covenant, the

Old Testament that was full of handwriting ordinances that now under the new covenant we're not under an obligation to.

I don't understand that as saying that our debt was forgiven when

Christ died at Calvary, especially since we're supposed to pray after the cross.

Jesus taught us to pray, Father, forgive us our debt. Well, you can't pray, forgive us our debt if that debt's already been paid.

So I've always taken Colossians 2, 14 to be in reference to the ordinances of the old covenant that we are no longer under an obligation to, that are no longer part of the covenant that has been done away with or fulfilled through Christ.

But when I, my belief is that your debt is not forgiven.

Faith, that justification by faith means you're not forgiven, your debt is not pardoned until you have faith.

Your debt was made forgivable through the cross that God can forgive your debt and be true to the obligations he has to justice because of Calvary.

But the actual pardon of that debt is not extended until you are converted, that's justification by faith.

Well, let me respond to that. If you wanna say that the certificate of debt or blatant handwriting of ordinances refers to the law, then you have a problem.

Because if the law is canceled, there can be no sin because the Bible clearly tells us in Romans three, four, and five, where there is no law, there is no sin, where there is no law, there is no imputation.

So - I'm not talking about the moral law, I'm talking about like the dietary laws that these different ordinances, I'm not talking about the commandments,

I'm talking about ordinances. Well, hold on, it's my minute. And so if you're gonna be saying that, you got a problem because then it would mean, and you can't distinguish because if you're gonna distinguish like that and say it means only certain parts but not the whole part, that's not what's going on.

The ordinances says, the handwriting of ordinances consisting of laws and decrees and the word in Greek is dogma, which has to do with all doctrines and official legal documents.

This has to do with the issue of the law and forgiveness of sins in Colossians 2 .13, which is the issue there.

So he's talking about blotting out the transgressions, blotting out the sins and did that at the cross. If you wanna say it's the law that is blotted out, then how can the law be blotted out?

Because the law is blotted out and canceled, nobody can go to hell because without the law, there is no sin. Either way, you got a problem.

Yeah, I didn't realize we could respond after each question was answered. I didn't respond to any of your answers.

I wanted to, but I held back. Well, we're gonna have a discussion. It was supposed to be, yeah, well, that's just oversight.

Okay, I said it, but I think you just forgot. No big deal, it happens in debates, all right, that you have the minute response.

So, and I forgot to tell you that too, even though I didn't say it earlier, I forgot to remind you. But I didn't get to follow up on that, so, all right.

And moderators could do that. That's a moderator's job, Cy. Well, I've only got half the information,

Matt. That's all right, okay. All right, well, you know, Jesse, even though we disagree,

I know you're a nice enough guy to know that we're just working through it, all right. Well, how about this?

I'll put the question right in the text. If sin is not a legal debt, then why did

Jesus equate them together? You know, our Father who art in heaven, in Matthew 6, 12, forgive us our debts,

Matthew 11, 4, forgive us our sins. Again, if sin is not a legal debt, then why did Jesus equate them together?

Yeah, sin is a legal debt. When you owe obligation to God, and then when, you know, we're obligated to obey him, to love him, when we disobey, we're incurring a debt because we're not fulfilling our obligations.

And then there's also, we not only incur a debt because we disobeyed, we've also incurred the penalty of the law.

My view is that the Bible says that our debt is forgiven, or like you say, canceled.

And that, you know, contradicts the idea that our debt was quote -unquote paid. Because if a debt is paid, then it's not being forgiven.

If you have a mortgage on your house, and you're, you know, you can't pay your mortgage, it's more than you can pay.

So your friend Jesus goes to the bank and pays off your mortgage for you. Then the banker can't call you up and say, hey, you know, your friend paid your mortgage for you, so now we're gonna forgive you your debt.

Well, if he paid it all, there's nothing left over to be forgiven. Forgiveness implies that the debt is still there.

If the debt's been paid, then there's nothing left over to be forgiven. And that's why there's Calvinists, like, you know,

Jonathan Edwards Jr., who rejected the Jesus paid your debt analogy, because debt in the scriptures is never used to illustrate the nature of the atonement.

It's only used to illustrate the nature of forgiveness. The Bible says, father, forgive us our debt, or it says, he frankly forgave them their debt, or the man in Matthew 18, the unforgiving man, had his debt forgiven.

And so the debt analogy, since scriptures to illustrate the nature of forgiveness.

So I don't deny that there's a correlation between sin and debt. I simply believe that the atonement as a substitute for penalty makes it possible for God to forgive our unpaid debt.

This is how Jonathan Edwards Jr. said it. He said, if a third person pay a debt, there would be no grace exercised by the creditor in the discharging of the debtor.

Yet when a third person atones for a crime by suffering in the stead of a criminal, then there's entire grace in the discharge of the criminal.

And retributive justice still allows him to be punished. He said, if our forgiveness be purchased and the price of it be already paid, it seems to be a matter of debt and then not of grace.

And so my position is simple. Jesus paid our ransom and he forgave our debt.

Ransom and debt are not the same thing. The payment of the ransom made possible the pardon of the debt.

Okay. Well, yeah, you quoted your book in page 469, 470. The debt analogy is used in scripture to illustrate the nature of forgiveness, but it's never used to illustrate the nature of atonement.

It's not a really clear sentence, but Jesus did equate sin with debt. So you said sin's a legal debt.

Okay, great. I agree with you. It's a legal debt. Can't be illegal. I believe the debt is pardoned by his mercy.

Is the legal debt transferred to Jesus? According to 1 Peter 2, 24, he bore our sin.

Is that our legal sin debt transferred to him? No, he died for the sake of our sins, just like an animal sacrifice in the

Old Testament. It was for the sake of sin, but the sacrifice did not become personally guilty, and the sacrifice did not bear the exact and literal penalty that you deserved, but that an atonement is, like you said, equivalent, not identical, but it is equivalent to the penalty of the law.

As a substitute, it fulfills all the purposes penalty would have fulfilled, and so the penalty itself can be remitted.

The debt can be pardoned. That's the whole idea of an atonement, is that something can be done that would render the remission of the penalty and the pardon of the debt consistent with justice.

It's kind of a haphazard way we're doing things. You wanna just jump into the open discussion where we kind of interrupt each other a little bit politely and keep going?

Sure. Okay, because my question that I'm gonna follow up with just goes right into this.

We can just kind of go into it, and if it becomes too rude, either one of us can say, hey, you know,

I think you're being too rude, or whatever, or not give me enough time, all right? Yeah. So I asked a question just a bit ago, and you didn't answer it.

You went someplace else. I specifically asked, and I'll put it in the text, all right, and so you can see it. Here it is.

First Peter 2 .24 says, Jesus bore our sin in his body on the cross. Now, you said sin is a legal debt.

My question was, in First Peter 2 .24, when it says Jesus bore our sin and sin's a legal debt, which is what you said, was our legal debt then transferred to Jesus according to First Peter 2 .24?

No, Jesus died for our sins, meaning that's the purpose his suffering was for, but our debt itself was not transferred to Christ.

Our debt is forgiven because of Christ. Because he provided a alternative to the payment of our debt, then our debt can be pardoned.

And the idea of an atonement is that it's an alternative or a substitute to payment or punishment.

He died for our sins that they might be forgiven. The Bible says he shed his blood for the remission of sins.

Now, remission means - You don't answer my question. I thought I answered it clear. He did not indebted with our debt.

He died for our sins for the sake of our sins that our sin debt could be pardoned.

My question was, according to First Peter 2 .24, it says he bore our sin.

You said sin's a legal debt. When he bore our sin and sin -

I didn't say sin is a legal debt. I said sin incurs a legal debt. We actually have a quote, sin is a legal debt.

That's what you said. I have it in quotes. So you can modify that. Wouldn't be the first time you misquoted me.

Well, that's what you just said. But the thing is, if you wanted to say, no, that's not my word. We all kind of say things we want to modify later.

That's fine. So what do you want to say sin is in regard to legal debt? Are you going to say it's not a legal debt?

Well, sin is transgression of the law. That's what sin is. When - Is sin a legal debt? Yeah, First John 3 .4.

No, sin is not a legal debt. Sin incurs a legal debt. Legal debt?

What does it mean, incurs a legal debt? But legal debt, who incurs a debt? Okay. It's very simple.

It's saying like, you know, is not paying your mortgage a debt?

Well, no, not paying your mortgage just incurs an obligation to then, you know, pay your -

Who incurs a legal debt when you sin? We have incurred a legal debt by our sin.

And our sin is not a legal debt. Our sin is a choice. Our sin is a transgression of God's law.

That choice to sin incurs a debt. So when you have sinned, right?

I've sinned. So the sin that you've committed is not a debt to God? That needs to be taken care of?

No, I said incurred a debt. No, there's a difference between sin - Okay, you incurred debt. Great. You incur a debt. Incurring a debt.

Who incurs the debt then? Who is responsible for that debt? We are indebted to God.

You and I, because of our sin, we have a debt to God. And it's only because of the blood of Christ that that debt can be forgiven.

If that debt was paid, then there is no forgiveness of our debt. If that debt was paid by Christ, we could never pray the way

Jesus taught us to pray. I got you. Father, forgive us our debts. When the Bible says he bore our sins when he was on the cross, for our sins and for our transgressions, he was wounded.

That's saying that the purpose of his atonement was for our sins. It does not include all of these theological notions that our debt was transferred to Christ or that Christ became guilty or sinful.

I'm still back here. You said that you have a legal debt to God according to your sin.

You incur a legal debt. You do, when you sin, you incur a legal debt, but you say sin's not a legal debt.

How do you have, when you sin, you incur a legal debt, but sin is not a legal debt? It's very simple.

If you get punched in the mouth, then you'll get a bloody lip, but a bloody lip is not a punch in the mouth.

So what does it mean to incur? Is that a legal responsibility? To incur a debt means that you are now indebted.

You're indebted to God. Because of your sin, you become indebted. Yes. And that debt, the Bible says, because our ransom has been paid, our debt can be pardoned.

So let me ask you, how can we pray, Father, forgive us our debts, if our debt's already been paid?

You mean in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, where he just generically gives in the beatitudes, the high priestly,

I mean, the prayer of just generic stuff to people, that this is what we're supposed to be doing? It's not a specific legal thing that he's talking about in this context of Colossians 2 .14,

in the nature of the atonement there. He's saying, look, just forgive us our, Lord, forgive us our debts, forgive us our sins.

It's what we're supposed to be doing as Christians. Yeah, but how can we pray for our debts to be forgiven if our debt was paid before we were even born?

Forgiveness and legal canceling are different. We have our sins canceled at the cross.

That's what Colossians 2 .14 says. No matter what you say, that's what it says.

Canceled the certificate of debt at the cross. That means the legal debt is canceled.

So you're born without a debt. You're born with your debt already paid. 2 ,000 years ago,

I'm born, for example, or whoever's born. That person has not yet then been justified.

But because God works all things after the counsel of his will, Ephesians 1 .11, what he does is, he grants that a person believe when

God chooses to do that. Philippians 1 .29, he grants that we believe. And according to 2

Timothy 2 .25, he grants that we have repentance and we're born again not of our own will,

John 1 .13, and he causes us to be born again, 1 Peter 1 .3. And the reason we believe is because we've been appointed to eternal life.

As many as - You're not answering the question. Yes, I am. No, the question is, how can you pray, forgive us our debt -

I'm trying to, for an answer. Already canceled before you were born? I'm trying to answer the question.

I'm trying to answer the question. The biblical theology, so that you'll understand what actually is happening. The biblical theology is that Jesus did this a long time ago, he canceled the debt.

When we believe, which is because of his work, because he infallibly brings us to the place where the elect will believe, that's when the righteousness of God, according to Philippians 3 .9,

is reckoned to our account, to impute, is imputed to us. That's the legal aspect of the atonement.

Do you believe that we are forgiven? Only people who've trusted in Christ are forgiven.

And when are we forgiven? When we trust in Christ. When we trust, so before we trust in Christ, we're not forgiven.

What are we not forgiven of? Our sins. Even though our debt was already canceled?

The legal act of Jesus canceling the debt happened before I was ever born.

He imputed my sin to Christ on the cross, canceling the certificate of debt, canceling the debt.

Because God knows all things, and because he's everywhere all the time, he simply imputed my sin to Christ.

When I'm born, and I'm two years old, the justification that is going to be given to me later has not yet occurred.

Because I'm elect by God's grace, then what happens is he brings me to faith at that appointed time.

As many as had been appointed to eternal life believe. That's why he grants that we believe Philippians 1 .29.

So we are not in a state of forgiveness when we're born. The thing is that the elect sin have been canceled, and God infallibly will bring the elect to the place of faith, where the forgiveness of sins is fully manifested, and they are then justified.

So you would say we're born unforgiven of our canceled debt. We are still in a state of being under the law.

We're still in a state of not having been forgiven because we haven't trusted and been justified by faith yet.

Yeah, but if your debt was canceled before you were born, you should be born with a canceled debt, but you're saying that you're unforgiven of a debt that's already been canceled.

There is in Christian theology called - That's a double jeopardy within Calvinism, that you're being - No, it's not.

You're not forgiven of something that's already been paid. Of course, you are going to infallibly be drawn in and manifest that forgiveness that the righteous of God will be imputed to you when you believe.

God doesn't make any mistakes. He doesn't bear the sin of everybody who ever lives, and then people go to hell.

He doesn't do that. I think the Bible says that he died even for those who perish. The Bible says he even bought false teachers who bring upon themselves with destruction.

The atonement doesn't make salvation automatic for anyone. It makes salvation available for everyone.

If you wanna go to 2 Peter 2 .1, that's fine, but I'm trying to answer the question about what the issue of the canceling of the debt is because Paul the apostle said in Colossians 2 .14,

he canceled that debt at the cross. That's a fact. That's what he did. Then you should be born without a debt.

Then we're, the elect have the debt canceled. Then you should be born without a debt.

There you go. You're born with, let's say you're born without that debt and the manifestation of God's saving work in you in time will occur when you believe because he grants that you believe,

Philippians 1 .29. But if you're born without a debt - That's when you're justified. If you're born without a debt, what are you unforgiven of until you have faith?

Unforgiven of? What do you mean unforgiven of? We're not forgiven until we have faith. Okay, how many times have

I gotta say the same thing? What are we not forgiven of? What are we not forgiven of?

How do you not? What are you talking about not forgiven of? If we need to have faith to be forgiven, what do we need to be forgiven of?

We need to be forgiven of our - Our debt that was already canceled? Right. The sin debt, legally, has already been canceled at the cross.

Colossians 2 .14 says so. Having canceled out the certificate of debt, he canceled it at the cross.

That's what it says. You're arguing against scripture. The scripture says he canceled the certificate of debt at the cross.

No, I think you're misunderstanding that verse. No, I'm not. Let's go take a look at the verse.

We took a look at it. But I'm saying - No, no. You're saying I'm telling you what the scripture says.

If your debt was canceled before you were born, then how could you be born with still some type of unforgiveness that you need to have faith to be forgiven of?

That's a logical inconsistency where I think the biblical position is that we have a debt, but it's not forgiven until we have faith.

That's what we say. This is what Colossians 2 .13 says. Let's read the scriptures.

Your view of the nature of the atonement is inconsistent with our - It's not. I'm telling you what the scripture says.

You're the one inconsistent. Look what it says. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all of our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt.

He's talking there about forgiveness of our sins, our transgressions. That's what he says.

He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt.

The certificate of debt - When do we finish? When do we finish? The certificate of debt is talking about the forgiveness of all of our transgressions.

It's done at the cross. That's what Colossians 2 .14 says. Do you deny that that's what it says there in Colossians 2 .14?

No, I believe that our sins are forgiven through Christ at conversion.

Okay, I ask you a specific question. Colossians 2 .14 is talking about the forgiveness of our transgressions, our sins, having canceled out the certificate of debt.

When was the certificate of debt canceled? No, it says, the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, meaning the

Old Testament ordinances that we're not under obligation to anymore. This is not talking about your debt being forgiven before you have faith, or your debt being pardoned before you believe, or being born with a debt that's already been canceled.

That would contradict many other verses that talk about repentance for the remission of sins.

We already went over this. You're saying that the certificate of debt is the Old Testament law. So the law's canceled.

No, I don't see, I don't know what translation you're reading from. Lyon says a handwriting of ordinances.

I told you, the word kerographon means a handwritten IOU of legal indebtedness. That's why the

King James says handwriting of ordinances. The context is a transgression of our law. Those transgressions are forgiven.

And then that's why Colossians 2 .14 says, in a better translation, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt.

The participial form there, having forgiven us our transgressions, having canceled the certificate of debt, are together.

The unfortunate place of the number there, number 14, as a verse separation, is just unfortunate there.

What Paul the Apostle is telling us is that transgressions are forgiven there, having canceled the certificate of debt. Now, if you're gonna say that what that certificate of debt is, the handwriting of ordinances, are you saying that that's just the

Old Testament law? Yeah, that's my understanding, that the handwriting of ordinances is the Old Testament law that, as a new covenant, we're not under an obligation towards.

Romans 5 .13 says, when sin is not imputed, when there is no law.

If the law is canceled, there can be no sin. That's right, I'm not talking about the moral law. The moral law has never been canceled.

It doesn't say anything about moral law. There's a difference between commandments and ordinances. The ordinances are like the dietary laws.

The commandments would be like the 10 commandments. So we have sin. It doesn't say that. We violate the commandments.

What does it say? Romans 5 .13. A lobster is not a sin for me. So your argument that if we don't have ordinances under the new covenant, then we don't have sin, that's not right.

Just because I'm not obligated to keep the dietary laws doesn't mean sin doesn't exist. So wait a minute, the

Bible says sin is not imputed, which is a legal term, when there is no law. Who said there's no law?

I'm telling you what Paul the Apostle said in Romans 5 .13. You're the one saying. That doesn't apply to my understanding of this verse that says the ordinances are no longer obligatory to believers.

The ordinances and the dogmas, which are the legal decrees that are due for people to obey.

What you're doing is you're saying that there's three aspects. Well, you could say there's three aspects. And you're saying that when

Paul says there is no sin, when there is no law, you're saying only part of the law.

We know, and he knows very well, that the judicial aspect of the law isn't the issue because it's a theocratic system.

I'll go with you that it's the moral law, just for the sake of brevity, so we can get down to the point.

If you wanna say there is no transgression there, which I would say from what you're saying, if there is only a moral law issue, well, let me do it this way.

Are you saying here, when it says there is no law in Romans 5, 13, what exactly are you saying is that law?

If there is no law. There is no law. What is the law he's speaking about? Romans 5 is talking about the time between Adam and Moses, when the commandments was given that men had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's aggression.

Yes, what does it mean no law? Adam transgressed a actual commandment given by God. Those in between Adam and Moses only had the law of nature, the law written on their hearts.

That's what they transgressed. And so sin continued to spread. Death continued to spread because all had sinned.

And then through Moses came the commandments. And so sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Their sins are very different before Moses than after Moses. Sin is breaking the law of God, whether it's codified 10 commandments or not.

God says, don't eat of the tree. That's his law. The law has a punishment when they sinned, the separation from God.

Excuse me, my voice is going. Well, there's a difference between sin and transgression. Adam made a transgression.

It says, but those had sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression, meaning they didn't have - But he sinned. Yeah, they still sinned, but it's different from a transgression.

A transgression. He sinned. So what is Paul saying in Colossians 2 .14? What exactly is this -

It's not talking about the dietary laws. It's talking about the moral law. The moral law. Exactly. Okay.

In Colossians 2 .14, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, which was hostile to us.

These decrees - What translation are you using for that? NASB, which is what you should use if you're doing apologetics.

So what decrees did he cancel? I'm gonna answer this one more time, and then

I think we should move on. The handwriting of ordinances that was against us or contrary to us is talking about the ordinances of the old covenant that we are no longer under an obligation to.

What ordinances? The dietary laws, for example. So he canceled the dietary laws.

He blotted out these ordinances in the old covenant that were against us, that were contrary to us.

Those are now taken away by the cross. So the dietary laws are what are taken away. It's not saying that your debt is forgiven before you have faith or that your debt is forgiven before you believe.

So what you're saying is that the decrees are the dietary laws. Yeah, yes, for the hundreds of time.

That's what I'm saying. The handwriting ordinances are the dietary ordinances, ceremonial ordinances, different from the moral law that we are not under an obligation to because Christ has fulfilled them and done them away.

Okay, so the dietary laws. So when it says in verse 13, he forgave us all our transgressions, that's a reference to the dietary laws.

No, I don't know how you would assume that. Transgressions has to do with the law of commandments. He says, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees.

He's the one using the participle to connect these, having canceled the debt, having forgiven the transgressions.

He's relating them together. But you say the transgressions are the dietary laws. Yeah, well, no, the transgressions would be the moral laws, but he's saying that the

Colossians were forgiven of all your trespasses because they're already believers.

This is not saying that the elect are already forgiven before they have faith. Even you said that you're not justified until you have faith.

The transgressions are the moral laws and the decrees are the dietary laws.

Yeah, the dietary laws have been done away with. The transgressions of the moral laws have been forgiven, but -

So the concern here is not dietary laws. You're building your whole doctrine based on this one passage.

No, I'm not. And coming to the conclusion that our debt was forgiven at Calvary before we ever had faith.

And I think - The sin debt was canceled by Jesus. That's contrary to justification. It's not dietary. You're not justified until you have faith.

It's not dietary laws that were canceled. It's a debt. The word kerographon, and you need to study this, has to do with the legal aspect of indebtedness according to the law.

That's not dietary laws that he's talking about here. The word decree is dogma, and it always has to do with legal aspect.

When he's talking about this, he's talking in the context of having forgiven our transgressions, which is according to the law.

You're the one who's butchering this in order to make it fit your presuppositions and your assumptions.

I'm not making my doctrine out of one verse. I've already given you 1 John 3, 4, transgression of the law.

We've already gone to Matthew 6, 12, and 11, 4, that Jesus equates sin with debt. Go to 1 Peter 2, 24, where he bore our sin, which you were not able to properly answer because you don't have the idea that our sin debt can be transferred.

You haven't dealt with that. When I said, what does it mean he bore our sins? If it's a legal debt, which you said basically is, he would bear it in his body.

What does that mean? He canceled the sin debt at the cross when he bore our sin debt in his body. You don't have to like it, but that's what the text is saying.

Well, if that were the case, if your debt was canceled at Calvary, then you would be born saved.

You would be born without debt. No, you would not be born saved. You would be born already forgiven. Yes, you would be. You don't understand. The universalist is more consistent than you.

The universalist has the same atonement model you have. No, no. And the universalist will say that when you have faith, it's not that you're getting saved, you're just believing that you're already saved.

And that fits with your atonement model that your debt was forgiven and pardoned or canceled before you were even born or before you had faith.

I'm sure you were pardoned. That would mean that you were saved. I'm sure. And that's not true. The atonement does not automatically pardon anyone's debt.

The atonement gives forgiveness available for everyone, but that forgiveness is not granted until they repent.

The Bible says you repent for the forgiveness of sins. So your debt of sin is not pardoned until you repent.

Jesus said he shed his blood for the remission of sins, but even after the atonement, men are told to repent, quote, for the remission of sins.

So the atonement makes it possible, but it's not granted. Forgiveness of your debt is not granted until you repent.

How do you understand it when the Bible says repent for the forgiveness of sins, even after the atonement?

Let me look it up. Now, as you do, you have not properly looked at what

Colossians 2, 13 and 14 is saying. It's not dietary laws. It's a transgression of our sins that are forgiven.

That's what it says. I'm thinking of Acts 2 .38. And Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, quote, for the remission of sins, meaning that their sin debt has not been forgiven yet because now they're told to repent and be baptized for the sake of the remission of their sins.

So their sin debt is still there after the atonement until they repent. Let's go to Acts 2 .38.

So you're saying then that the order here is that you must repent, get baptized in the name of Jesus for, in order to get forgiveness of sins.

Yes. So you have to be baptized in order to get forgiveness of sins too? Well, I think in this scenario, it's happening all at the same time.

Their baptism. It says be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins. You said repentance is what gives you the forgiveness of sins.

Here it says repent and, well, I'm gonna go with what you say. You said repent and that's what gives you forgiveness of sins, but it says here, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

So according to what your logic would be, you have to be baptized to be saved. I'm just reading the verse and you tell me, why does it tell them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins if their sins have, sin debt has already been canceled?

Are you telling me? Now I've asked the question, you're avoiding it. Are you telling me that baptism is necessary for salvation along with repentance?

I think that's a rabid deal from the, I think - It is not because you're the one who said repent for forgiveness of sins and you skipped what it said.

You altered the verse to make it suit your needs. I read the whole thing.

And now you're saying that I'm the one on the rabbit trail. You brought up Acts 2 .38. You're the one who misquoted it.

I think you're causing a real issue here and trying to get into it. You misquoted it. I'm not, all right, fine.

Let's, for the sake of argument, let's say baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Is that what you say?

For the sake of argument, since you're making it - No, no, no, your position. No, that's not what I'm - Is it your position? I don't believe that you have to, that you're unsaved until you get baptized.

But let's, for the sake of argument - Are you unsaved until you repent? Let's, for the sake of argument, let's say you have to repent and be baptized and then your sin debt is forgiven.

Why is - So repent. Why is Peter telling them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins if their sin debt has already been canceled?

That doesn't make any sense. Yes, it does. I'll answer the question. We'll come back to this. The reason the sin debt has been canceled is because Jesus canceled at the cross,

Colossians 2 .14. He bore our sin in his body on the cross and he paid the price there, 1 Peter 2 .24. This is what the

Bible says. The reason he's talking about this here is a generic thing. It's not an issue of salvation.

This is not a formula for salvation. So he's not telling them to get saved. They're already saved.

It's not a formula for salvation. Faith isn't even mentioned here. If this is a formula for salvation, there is no faith.

I do this all - So they already have the remission of sin. Hold on. Hold on. I do this all the time with the people who hold to this verse.

They say you'll be baptized in Jesus name, but the one is Pentecostal. They're the ones who say that it's a formula for salvation.

If it's a formula for salvation, why is faith not mentioned? It can't be a formula for salvation.

Something else is going on here. What it says here, it says, all of you repent. It's plural, repent, plural.

And each individual, each one of you in the Greek get baptized for the forgiveness of your plural sins.

He's not saying that you get baptized in order to be saved. And he's not saying you repent in order to be saved.

Because if that's the case, that you have to repent in order to get saved, repentance is keeping the law and turning away from sin.

Sin is transgression of the law. Repentance is turning back to doing what's right according to the law. And if repentance is necessary for salvation, then you are saying you're saved by keeping the law.

So you don't believe in repenting of sin to be saved. I didn't say that, did I? I said that if you're saying that you must repent in order to be saved, then you're saying you have to keep the law in order to be saved.

No, well, I do believe you have to forsake your sins to be saved, but unbelief is a sin.

Is unbelief a sin? Unbelief is a sin. Yeah, unbelief is a sin. Do you need to repent of unbelief to be saved?

No. So you can be saved in your unbelief. I didn't say that. Do you have to repent of unbelief to be saved?

No. Well, explain that. How can you be justified by faith and yet you don't need to repent of unbelief to be saved?

Problem is you don't understand the terminology that you're using. You don't understand the logic of what we Calvinists will say in regard to this particular issue.

I am a Calvinist. Repentance is not what brings you to salvation. What happens is God regenerates you and along with that, you're enabled to repent.

You're enabled to believe. An unbeliever who can do no good and can't please God, Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12, was a slave of sin,

Romans 6, 14 through 20, who cannot receive spiritual things, 1 Corinthians 2, 14, is not gonna be able to turn from his sin because he's a slave of sin.

He's a hater of God. He can do no good. It's not the unbeliever turning from his sin that saves him.

The unbeliever is saved by turning to Christ because God grants that he believe, Leviticus 1, 29, grants him the ability to repent, 2

Timothy 2, 25. When he does that, that's when he's justified, Romans 5, 1.

You don't understand the issue of what's going on. It's not repentance. You're saying unbelievers can repent and unbelievers get their salvation by their keeping the law.

God is the one who commands people to repent and he blames them if they don't. Why does he command everybody to repent if he's the one who grants it?

Well, he grants you the opportunity to repent. He grants you time to repent, like Revelations 3, that says he gave her space to repent, but she repented not.

So God granted her the opportunity to repent, but her own choice neglected it. So yes, God grants you repentance or grants you the opportunity, the chance, the time, the influence, but it's a choice that you must make.

Now, yes, you have to repent of unbelief in order to be justified by faith. You can't be justified by faith if you remain in your unbelief.

So you're - Of course. You're gonna say you don't need to repent of sin to be saved would mean you don't need to repent of unbelief to be saved, which would be a denial of justification by faith.

Justification by faith occurs because God grants that we believe. Philippians 1 .29, it's been granted to you to believe. Fine, but you're still repenting of unbelief.

Yes, you are because you're regenerated. Hold on, let us continue. Let's continue. But that's beside the point.

The point is you're still repenting of your unbelief in order to be justified by faith. No, you're not. You're not saved by keeping the law.

I not, no, you're not saved by the merit of obedience, but you still have to obey as a condition of God's mercy.

What is repentance? Is it not turning from sin? Well, repentance is a change of mind about sinning, making up your mind to sin no more.

Yes, yes. That's a condition of merciful pardon that is not a way to earn or merit your salvation.

That would be justification by works of the law. That's what you're teaching. Repenting of your sins is not justification by works of the law.

Yes, it is because repentance means turning from what you're doing against the law to keeping the law.

That's what repentance is. No, not if you repent of your unbelief, then not if you repent of your self -righteousness, not if you repent of your pride.

Wait, look, Jesse, how is it? Even you believe that a person has to turn from trusting in themselves to then trusting in Christ.

They have to turn from their self -righteousness to then trust Christ's righteousness. Well, that itself is still a repentance of sin.

Self -righteousness is a sin. Pride is a sin, but that's beside the point.

The point that we were on was that you're saying that the sin debt was forgiven at Calvary, not at conversion.

When the Bible says you need to repent for the forgiveness of your sins after Calvary has already happened.

I said that the legal sin debt was canceled at the cross, which is what it says in Colossians 2 .14.

You went to Acts 2 .38 and misquoted the verse, which I did correct you on, and shows your inconsistency there.

You said it was a formula for salvation. I showed you it's not because faith is not included in there. I can show you from the scriptures where people receive the

Holy Spirit before they're baptized. And it's a gift that's given, but it's given by God.

I showed you that repentance is not the thing that saves us because repentance is keeping the law.

We're not saved by our ability to turn from something bad and do something good. That's not what saves us.

Repentance is not keeping the law. Repentance is changing your mind about breaking the law. And the fruit of repentance is keeping the commandments.

God grants us repentance, 2 Timothy 2 .25. The fruit of repentance with what repentance actually is.

The fruit of repentance is that you keep the commandments. Repentance itself is just a change of mind.

No, you got that so wrong. The fruit is not of repentance. The fruit is regeneration. The new man has to be changed so that we can repent, so that we can believe, so that we can have the fruit.

It's the new man, the change that occurs in us is called regeneration. John 3 .3 -8 talks about being born again.

We're caused to be born again. You said regeneration is the fruit of repentance. Don't you mean repentance is the fruit of regeneration?

Yes, you're correct. Thank you very much. I misspoke. Yeah. Appreciate that. Yeah. So good. So regeneration is the thing that when it's in place, makes repentance possible and belief possible.

But you're talking about the fruit of regeneration. I'm talking about the fruit of repentance. The Bible talks about - Okay, I got you.

The fruit meet for repentance. The works - Sure, no problem there. Works of the law is the fruit of repentance.

But repentance is not a work of the law. Yes, it is. That's a whole different issue that we,

I think - Well, sure it is. What is sin? Say lying. Okay, so someone's a liar. Now, to repent means to stop lying.

God says, thou shalt not lie. That means when you repent, you're keeping the law. Thou shalt not lie.

The moral issue. You said the moral law wasn't canceled. Well, we can get into that.

But repentance is keeping the obligation to obey the law as an example of not lying.

And you're saying by their turning from lying to not lying, that leads them to salvation.

That's keeping the law. If you want to be forgiven of lying, that's one of our sins that we've done. If you want to be forgiven of lying through the atonement of Christ, by the mercy of God, then you have to repent of lying.

Yes, repentance does not earn salvation. Repentance is a precondition of pardon through Christ.

You just said in Acts 2 .38, you repent in order to get for forgiveness. Yeah, it's a precondition.

It's not a way to merit. It's not a way to earn. It's a precondition.

How does an unbeliever who's a slave of sin, who's a hater of God, who can do no good, repentance is good, and he can do no good.

How does he just simply do all this stuff? Oh, well, that goes back to our free will debate that you can choose to change your mind.

The Bible says to repent, which means to change your mind. The carnally -minded, as long as they remain carnally -minded, cannot keep the law.

What they need to do is change their mind. And that's why Jesus marveled at their unbelief, because he gave them all the opportunity and all the influence necessary to do so.

You are capable of repentance. You are capable of doing what God requires, because free will was not lost when

Adam sinned. Again, we're getting off track. If you're capable of repentance, why does God have to grant it to you?

Well, he grants you the opportunity. He grants you the influence. He didn't say he grants you the opportunity. Yes, he gave her space to repent, and she repented not.

In other words, he gave her the opportunity, but he left it up to her to decide. God will not repent for you.

But again, it's beside the point. You keep changing the text. You keep changing the text. Is that if you are not forgiven of your sins until you have faith, justification by faith.

You're justified when you have faith. Your sin date is canceled at the cross, which is what the Bible teaches.

So you're born forgiven, or you're forgiven when you have faith? You're forgiven when you have faith, because there's a theory, not a theory.

There's a status in the Bible called the now and the not yet. And I can show it to you in scripture.

It's right there in Romans chapter eight, starting at verse 29.

What it says, starting at verse 29, verse 29 and 30. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son so that he would bring, excuse me, he would be the firstborn among many brethren.

And those, excuse me, and these whom he predestined, notice this is past tense. He also called.

Those whom he called, that's past tense. He also justified. That's past tense. Those whom he justified, he also glorified.

Glorified is past tense. Glorified - It's talking about like Abraham. It's not talking about New Testament believers, but -

Glorification occurs in the future. It's the resurrection of the body and the glorified body out of 1

Corinthians 15, 35 through 45, yet is spoken about as already having occurred. Enoch and Elijah, you know, then those, you know, they've been glorified and they've appeared.

No, they've not been glorified in the resurrected body. Jesus is the first fruits of that. And then the rest of us will be raised when he returns.

And that's another topic. They have not been glorified in the resurrected bodies. Jesus is the first one. Here it says they were glorified.

This is the now and the not yet. This is the proof in the scriptures that God sees us as justified, sees us as glorified, sees us as predestined, yet most of it hasn't even happened yet.

How can we be justified if ones were predestined? You can't just say it's of the Old Testament saints.

Because when it says those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become the image of the -

Foreknew means those he knew before. Just like when it's the prognoscope, it's the same word when

Paul said in the book of Acts, you knew before that I lived as a strict Pharisee.

Or Peter said in his epistle, you knew these things before. So he's talking about the saints that he knew before in the

Old Testament. But I wanna - Not exactly, that's incorrect. That is absolutely incorrect. I can show you from scripture that you're wrong.

That's not correct. God says he only knows the believers. He never says he knows unbelievers. Get away from me,

I never knew you. That's the word prognoscope. The Old Testament saints that he knew before. He knew Abraham. That's not what he's talking about here.

Those whom he foreknew, those who he knew before. Verse 28 of Romans, verse 28.

And we know - I wanna hear from you for a moment, you said - Wait a minute, this is too tough for you. We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love

God, to those... I'm trying to show you what it says.

I wanna get back to the nature and extent of the atonement. This is a complete rabbit trail. This is what you said during your talk.

You said, the sin debt was canceled at the cross, not when we believe. But then you just said we are forgiven when you have faith.

That's two contradictory sentences. What are you forgiven of? What are you forgiven of? The forgiveness is simply the term.

This forgiveness is simply that when God on the cross bore our sin in his body on the cross, that's when he canceled the certificate of debt.

The manifestation of that canceling won't happen until we're justified by faith.

Justification is the legal declaration by God where he imputes the righteousness of God, according to Philippians 3 .9,

to the believer. The justification occurs then. The issue of forgiveness is spoken of in many different ways in the scriptures.

When we talk about forgiveness, even John says, if we confess our sins, he's faithful just to forgive us our sins.

It's spoken of in the sense of a continued action that we recognize in a human level, in a human time, that we need to go and be forgiven of our sins.

In the strictly satirological sense of the nature and the extent of the atonement,

Jesus bore our sin in his body on the cross, which is a legal debt, which was transferred to him, and he canceled it then.

That's what it says in Colossians 2, verses 13 through 14, and 1 Peter 2 .24.

We receive the righteousness of God upon our belief, having therefore been justified by faith,

Romans 5 .1. We receive the righteousness of God given to us, Philippians 3 .9,

a righteousness that is not our own. It has to belong to God, Jesus, God in flesh, who kept the law.

It's therefore imputed to us when we believe. This issue of forgiveness is spoken of, like I said, in many different ways.

If you're trying to make it into a legal aspect equivalent to just, excuse me, equivalent to the propitiatory sacrifice that removes the sin, that cancels the sin debt, the sin debt canceled for someone who doesn't even live yet can't be applied to them until they're justified.

When they recognize that they need the forgiveness of sins, they're recognizing that they have sinned against God and that they need that very forgiveness.

The fact that their sin debt's canceled doesn't mean they don't need forgiveness. What do they need forgiveness of?

Of their sins. But then their sin debt was already canceled. It's canceled and they need forgiveness of their sins.

The canceling of the debt is not the same thing as the forgiveness. The canceling of the debt means a legal debt doesn't exist anymore.

And the forgiveness of the sins means that they recognize that they have sinned against God. Someone whose sin debt's canceled and they sin against God, they still recognize they need their sin forgiven, right?

No, being forgiven of a debt that's already been canceled makes no sense at all. Okay. It makes no sense.

Okay, what you're failing to do is understand what I'm trying to tell you in regard to the issue of forgiveness.

Sin debt is canceled at the cross. I've already shown you that from scripture. It's removed.

God will give that to the elect. Well, actually give the righteousness of God to the elect at that right time when they believe.

A person who sins, sins by saying they, let's say the guy gets saved at 40 years of age.

At 30, he's an adulterer. At 30, he has still sinned. His sin is still there.

His sin is occurrence. Ultimately, all of those sins were imputed to Christ and ultimately canceled.

But it doesn't mean that when he's 30 and he commits adultery, that he hasn't sinned. The sin debt, even his adultery, which is his sin, which he commits, which he needs forgiveness for, has been imputed to Christ.

When he sins, he really does sin and he needs forgiveness for that real sin.

And he asked God, please forgive me of my sin. So he's forgiven. But ultimately, because he's elect, the sin debt ultimately has been canceled.

What you're doing is confusing or conflating this issue of the legal transference of our sin debt to Christ and the issue of a person, so to speak, committing adultery when he's 30.

He should be forgiven later on at 40 when he becomes a Christian. It doesn't mean he hasn't sinned. It doesn't mean there is no sin.

It means he needs that forgiveness. That's exactly what's going on. It's perfectly consistent. Would you agree that forgiveness implies that there's indebtedness that needs forgiveness?

That's why the legal sin debt is canceled at the cross. Yes, but you deny that. Well, if the indebtedness was canceled at the cross, then there's no indebtedness that needs forgiveness after the cross.

Okay, when a guy is censored, canceled at the cross at 30 years old, has he sinned when he commits adultery?

Yeah, but that sin debt has been already - Has he sinned when he commits adultery? It's a yes or a no. In your view, that sin debt that he just did has already been canceled.

I didn't ask if it's been canceled. I said, has he sinned when he commits adultery at 30 years of age?

In my view, yes, yes. So he sinned - He just incurred a new debt. Okay, let me work. So the sin is according to the moral law.

Yes. You said the moral law was canceled. No, I said they're handwriting ordinances, dietary laws, not the moral law.

Oh, the dietary laws. Okay, so only the dietary laws are canceled, even though it's not what the text says.

You have to say that. Of course you gotta say that. Otherwise you're stuck. I'm saying, if you commit adultery when you're 30, now you are indebted to God and you need forgiveness for that indebtedness and the atonement, which was not the payment of our debt, it was the payment of our ransom.

It was the price required for God to forgive us. Now, because of the atonement, we can be forgiven of our debts that we incur throughout our life, but we have to repent and believe in order to receive that forgiveness.

Of course we say we have to repent and believe in order to receive the forgiveness, but we say that God enables us to do those things.

We don't take credit for ourselves. You do. You're not forgiven of your debt.

You're not forgiven of your sin until you have faith. And so - The manifestation of the work of God -

I think we're running over and over again. Yes, we are. The manifestation of his work of canceling the debt occurs when we believe, which he grants to us.

And he only grants it to the elect. He only grants it to those whom he has chosen for salvation.

He grants that we believe, Philippians 1 .29. He grants us repentance, 2 Timothy 2 .25.

We're born again, not of our own will. John 1 .13

says so. Not of our own will. It's not an issue. These are all the nature, sorry, can you read?

Yeah. The origin of saving faith is, I think, a rabbit trail to what we're supposed to be talking about, the nature - No, it's not.

Because you're the one who said, you brought up Acts 2 .38, and you said that repentance was necessary for salvation.

You're the one who said that the condition of a person's attitude and ability to turn from sin is what brings them to salvation.

And I'm showing you that that's wrong according to scripture. You keep wanting to go back to Colossians 2 .14,

which I have no problem doing. I've answered you every which way, but Friday. Faith is volitional because the

Bible commands all men everywhere to repent. The Bible commands that men believe. Jesus marveled - Why does he command them to repent?

He upbraided them for their impotence. He rebuked them for being slow of heart. Interesting. To believe.

But the nature - Why does he command them to repent if he grants repentance? Of repentance is not what we're supposed to be debating.

It's the nature and extent - But you bring this up. You're the one who do this, and then you say, don't address what I bring up on my rabbit trail.

You're not forgiven until you repent. Now, whatever the nature, whether it's repentance God gives you or repentance -

So forgiveness is based on your repentance. The point is, you're not forgiven of your debt until you are converted.

Until you repent - Your sin debt? Yes, you need to be forgiven -

You're not forgiven of your sin debt until you turn from your sins. But if you're saying that the debt's already been canceled, then there's no need for anything to be forgiven.

Yes, there is. I keep telling you this. It's unnecessary. Faith - For us in time, it's necessary.

God in eternity - That's because you don't believe it. Your debt is canceled even if you don't believe it. God, but you don't know that.

The person who's an unbeliever doesn't know that. But in your theology, it's true. Your debt is canceled even if you don't believe it.

But they have no indebtedness. They have nothing that needs forgiveness. Okay, what you're doing is you're conflating the legal aspect of God's omniscience and predestination and his imputing sin from the future down to a person on the cross.

You're confusing that with a guy who's walking around who recognizes he's sinned and now he needs to go get forgiveness.

And you're saying they're the same thing. And I'm saying, no, they're not. The person who recognizes his sin needs forgiveness.

That's not saying, oh, there's nothing to forgive because he's already been forgiven. What you're doing is you're conflating the issues. What needs forgiveness?

The indebtedness is gone, it's canceled. What needs forgiveness? Jesse, I've answered this numerous times. Not satisfactory, not sufficient.

Not to you. No, not even close. It makes it. Of course it's not gonna be. Because you teach that a person must, of his own free will within his sinfulness, repent in order to get saved.

You went to Acts 2 .38 for that. I'm saying that your debt is not forgiven until you have faith, regardless of the nature of that faith.

Or the origin of that faith. The Bible teaches you're not justified, you're not forgiven until you have faith.

But you're saying that the indebtedness was canceled before you have faith. The legal aspect was taken care of at the cross.

And that's contradictory. That's not consistent or coherent at all. Was the legal aspect of the atoning work finished at the cross?

The atonement as a substitute for penalty was accomplished at Calvary.

But the substitution of penalty does not obligate God to remit penalty. It enables

God to remit penalty when you have saving faith. So the penalty is -

The penalty is - Debt is unforgiven. It's like you want the best of both worlds. You want an atonement that in of itself canceled our debt.

And yet then you come to like a provisionary atonement that makes it possible for your debt to be forgiven when you have faith.

And those two principles are not compatible. You want the best of both. They're going through back and forth.

But you're the one who's saying here that repentance is a thing that leads you to be able to be forgiven. It's a condition of pardon.

Yes, repentance is a condition of pardon. So you can't be forgiven of your sins until you repent.

That's correct. You need to repent of your unbelief, repent of your pride, repent of your self -righteousness. You need to repent of your sin.

And how is it, I'll ask you again, since you brought this up, how is it that an unbeliever who cannot receive the things of God, 1

Corinthians 2 .14, who is a slave of sin, Romans 6 .14 -20, who can do no good,

Romans 3 .10, 11, and 12, who's by nature a child of wrath, Ephesians 2 .3, who's dead in his sins,

Ephesians 2 .1. How does someone like that freely choose God? The same way the prodigal son did, who was dead to the father and yet still had a freewill ability to return to him.

Dead does not mean inability. You're not answering the question. Dead has to do with relationship. You're not answering the question.

The sinner is fully capable of repentance. He's dead in his sin, meaning his relationship to God.

He's a servant of sin, meaning he's choosing to serve sin, but he still has a constitutional faculty of freewill that enables him to be a free moral agent.

That was never lost. So you're saying he's fully - So I think you're misunderstanding all of those verses that you're referencing.

None of them teach that there's no freewill. No, man is capable by his freewill to repent of his sins.

And until he repents, he's unforgiven. And if the nature of the atonement was that your debt was canceled, then the idea of repenting for the remission of your sins or for the remission, for the pardon of your debt would make no sense at all.

You would be born safe. You cannot be born under the wrath of God if Jesus satisfied the wrath of God for your sins before you were even born.

It doesn't make any coherent sense. So the universalist makes no sense to me. We've already gone through this a thousand times.

I've answered you. And you raise something I'm trying to answer. And when I ask something and I try and show you something, you don't answer it.

And then you just go on for a full minute, throwing all kinds of stuff out at the wall, hoping something will stick. I've asked you a question here.

You're the one saying that the sinner is fully capable of repentance. If that's the case, why is it

God has to grant repentance to people? The sinner is unwilling to repent. So God has to draw him and influence him.

So God grants him, not just the opportunity, because God could take us out as soon as we sin, but he grants us time to repent.

He gives us space to repent, but he also grants us the influence necessary to repent because without his influence or his drawing on our own, we never would.

But the actual act of repenting is on man because God commands men to repent and he blames them.

If he upgraded the cities that repented not because he had done, the cities where he did his greatest miracles, his greatest works, they didn't repent.

That was God giving them an opportunity to repent, giving them the influence to repent, and yet they didn't.

And so he upgraded the cities where his mighty works were done because they repented not. So you're reading

God granting repentance as if God gives us the act of repentance.

That would make him responsible for all the impedance in the world. Bible says he grants repentance.

That's what it says. You say that what it means is he grants the opportunity of repentance.

It's not what the text says. It doesn't say he grants you the act of repentance. That's what you're saying and that's not what the text says.

Let me finish. What you continue to do is read things into the text.

You change the text. Now you say Colossians 2 .14 means only the dietary laws.

I go to Colossians, excuse me, 2 Timothy 2 .25, and I just quote it to you and you don't even quote it back to me and address it.

You change it and then argue based on the change, but that's not what the text says. You've done this numerous times.

It says here that he grants repentance. Now, the question is if the sinner, who's a slave of sin, who can do no good, which is what

Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12 says, he can do no good. It doesn't say he can't do no good. It says they don't do good. It doesn't say they can't.

You're adding to it. You're twisting it. You're changing it. There's certainly not an intention to. Let's go right to it.

Romans 3 .10, there's none righteous, not even one. There's none who understands.

There's none who seeks for God. All have turned aside. Together they become useless. It just says they don't.

It doesn't say they can't. There is none who does good. There's not even one. Yeah, it's by their own free will.

They choose not to do good. It doesn't say they can't do good. Okay, none does good is as, do you think, now hold on.

Do you think when he wrote this that anybody up to that point, you think maybe people had repented?

Well, this is talking about the unbelievers. These are the unconverted. So the unbelievers do not seek for God.

They do not do any good. It's a continuous action in the present. It's the way of peace they have not known.

There's no fear of God before their eyes. It's talking about the unsaved. The unsaved don't do good. The unsaved have nothing righteous.

The saved are not in that category, but that's not saying that the unbelievers cannot change.

It's just saying the condition that they're in is they're no good. The Greek is in a present tense, which is an ongoing action.

It's similar to the participle. None do good, none seek for God. None do it. Who? None who?

None of you. I'll go with what you just said a little bit ago, the wicked, the unbelievers. Let's do that.

Yeah, the unbelievers. So they can do no good. Don't say they can't, say they don't do good. Jesse, I'm trying to explain.

The Greek says they don't do any good. It's a continued action.

They don't. This is what the Greek present tense says. Yes, I understand. So they don't. Yeah, they don't.

Until they changed their mind. Until they were converted. Where does it say that? Well, that would be obviously implied because once you have a change of mind, you have the fear of God, you know the way of the people.

This is only talking about the unconverted. So there you go, modifying the text again. No, you modified it by saying these people, nobody can do good.

Look, I said from does to can't. That's all I did. And I went right back and said, okay, let's go look at it.

We went right to it. And I read you the text. None seeks for God. None does any good. And I tried to explain to you, the

Greek says they're not doing. It's a continued action. The unbelievers, the wicked don't do any good.

Repentance is good, but they don't do any good. And they can't do any good because, oh,

I'm back. Once you repent, you're no longer in that category because now you're not unconverted. That's talking about the unconverted who haven't repented yet.

They don't do any good because none does any good. This is a rabbit trail. I wanna get back to this issue of repentance for the remission of sins after the atonement.

Acts 8 .22 says, "'Repent therefore of this thy wickedness.'" So you're repenting of wickedness.

"'And pray, God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart "'might be forgiven thee.'" So here we see after the atonement, which you say canceled our debt.

Here it's saying you need to repent of your wickedness in order that your wickedness or your debt of sin might be forgiven you.

Who's he talking to there? He's talking to Simon, the sorcerer, I believe. Okay. And so Peter is saying to him, you need to repent.

You need to stop. And if perchance God will grant you repentance or excuse me, God will forgive you, right?

That God might, yeah, God might. You need to repent of wickedness to be forgiven. It doesn't say that, doesn't say that.

Yeah, pray that God might forgive you. Repent of your wickedness and pray that God might forgive you.

So - Turn from your sin and see if God will forgive you. Your sin that's not forgiven yet. Until you repent, your sin that's not forgiven.

Does it say that repentance will result in his forgiveness? It's implied that repentance is the pre -condition of forgiveness that you're supposed to be praying for.

So then he could repent and not be forgiven. No, God promises mercy to those who repent and he promises wrath.

He promises wrath and penitence. So yeah, God would forgive him. That's why he's telling him to repent. It's not that there's no connection.

Slow down, man. You're just going and going and going at 80 miles an hour.

Hold on. Let's look at the text. Why would Peter tell you to repent if there's no connection between repentance and forgiveness?

I'm trying to look at the text. Verse 22, therefore repent of this wickedness of yours and pray that the

Lord, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven. You're the one saying that repentance leads to forgiveness.

What he's saying, Peter's saying here, if possible, if it's possible, then it's not a leading to, it's not the result.

You're the one saying repentance is what will bring you to forgiveness. But that's not what

Peter's saying. Repent, if possible, you might be forgiven. He's not saying that repentance is what gets you forgiveness but repentance is something you ought to do because that's what's right.

And maybe God will forgive you. Forgive you of the debt that's already been canceled? That makes no sense.

Okay, yeah, geez. You know, look at the text, what it says. Yeah. You look at the text.

The reason I bring this text out is not to prove that repentance is a precondition of forgiveness. My point in bringing this out is showing that a person is not forgiven until they meet these conditions and that is incompatible with your view of the nature.

So, okay, since he's conditioned, so what, I got a question, I'm typing this out. What must,

I'm gonna list, okay, a person do to be saved? Yeah, repent and believe the gospel.

Okay, okay, so he has to repent and believe the gospel. Okay, so he cannot be saved unless he repents and he repents first and then he believes the gospel or simultaneous or is there any particular order?

Well, I think it is simultaneous but you have to repent of your unbelief in order to believe but on the other hand, why would you repent if you don't believe?

So it is two sides of the same coin. Okay, so how do you keep yourself saved?

This is, well, by persevering. He perseveres unto the end, shall we say. So you have to persevere in that repentance and persevere in that faith.

If you backslide back into your sins, then you need a fresh forgiveness to be saved.

Do you lose your salvation every time you sin? Well, you certainly can. You look at the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18 because he wouldn't forgive others.

He lost his forgiveness. You said in your book, you lose your salvation every single time you sin. Yeah, if a believer deliberately sins, they're once again under the wrath of God and under chastisement when they repent.

So if someone purposely sins. The atonement does not make salvation automatic or unconditional.

Forgiveness through the atonement is only for those who repent of their sins. So the point is you said in your book and I can find the quote,

I've got it. You lose your salvation every time that you sin. That's what you said. Yeah. Now, if you lose your salvation every time you sin, it didn't say willing sin.

It didn't say purposeful or accidental or whatever. It says when you sin. So what you're saying then is whenever a

Christian sins, he's lost his salvation, right? Yeah, if you do not lose your salvation when you sin, then repentance is not a precondition of forgiveness, which you would agree with.

And that would mean that the impenitent are not under the wrath of God. The impenitent are saved and that's unbiblical.

Biblically, the only sins that you're forgiven of are the sins that you repent of. And if you're impenitent, you're not forgiven.

So if a believer is sinning, he's not repentant, he's impenitent. He has gone from being under God's mercy to being under God's wrath.

Wrath is promised to anyone who's sinning. Mercy is promised to anyone that repents. Okay, so you say you lose your salvation every time you sin.

If that's the case, then you keep your salvation by not sinning. Yeah, God keeps us in holiness so long as we don't resist him.

So you credit the influence of the spirit in your life, but you have to persevere in faith.

You have to persevere. You're not justified by faith if you no longer have faith. Jesse, Jesse, I ask a simple question, you go on eight different directions.

Now look, you said you lose your salvation every single time you sin. Then the logical is you keep your salvation by not sinning, right?

Sure, yes. Okay, so then you keep your salvation by your compliance with how good you are before God.

Sure, you don't earn salvation, but repenting of your sin and persevering in holiness is a precondition to the mercy of God.

So then you keep yourself right with God, you keep yourself saved with God by keeping the law.

You are, no, no, no. I would say you are justified by faith and saving faith will keep the commandments.

So keeping the commandments is a fruit of the faith that justifies you. If you're not keeping the commandments, then you don't have the faith that justifies.

Abraham, Abraham was justified by faith. But by faith,

Abraham obeyed God. So you don't have Abrahamic justification without Abrahamic faith.

And you don't have Abrahamic faith without Abrahamic obedience. The obedience is the fruit of the faith.

So we're saved by faith. We're not saved by works. We're not saved by merit. We're not saved by earning it.

We're saved by faith, but saving faith will result in an obedient life. So you can't claim to be justified by faith if you are living a disobedient life.

Okay, you said you lose your salvation every time you sin, every time you break the law of God.

Yes, sin is not an act of faith, right? You lose your faith every time that you sin. You're not trusting

God if you're not obeying God. So you lose your faith and therefore you lose. Jesse, Jesse, please.

Let me explain. So you lose your justification whenever you lose faith and you lose faith whenever you deliberately sin.

But the atonement is a provision through which you can be restored. You can be forgiven if you repent.

So you lose your salvation every time you sin and then you keep it by not sinning.

Not sinning is keeping the moral law of God. So you're saying you keep your salvation by your obedience to the moral law of God.

You are justified by faith. If you sin, you lose faith.

If you have faith, you won't be sinning. So you keep your salvation by keeping the faith and not sinning is a result of keeping the faith.

You're the one who said that you lose your salvation when you sin, break the moral law of God.

You keep your salvation by not breaking the law of God. That means you keep your salvation by keeping the law of God.

That's what you're saying. Well, let me clarify. Let me explain what I mean by that. You are saved by faith.

Faith results in not sinning. And if you are sinning, then you have lost the faith and you've lost your justification because you've lost your faith.

So you keep your salvation by keeping the faith. I think that's better than saying you keep your salvation by not sinning.

It sounds a legalistic way. I'm saying you keep your salvation by keeping the faith and keeping the faith will result in an obedient life.

You're right. It does sound better. It sounds better. That's why you're wording it that way.

But at least it's coherent. Unlike your atonement view, that's not even. What you're saying is that you lose your salvation every time you sin.

Simple. You lose it by breaking the law of God. That's what you're saying.

Every time you break the law of God. Are you saying that a believer who commits adultery is still saved?

Okay. Hold on. Is that what you mean? Hold on. Let's work on this.

You're the one who's saying, if you sin, you morally sin, you do anything wrong, each and every time you do that, you are the one who lose your salvation.

Then by corollary, you have to say that you keep your salvation by not sinning.

When you say that you lose your salvation every time you sin, that's what you're saying. Those are your words.

You said this. Every time you sin, you lose your salvation. Then that means you keep your salvation before the holy, infinite

God by your ability to keep the law. And what you do is you say, no.

You say by faith. That's what I teach. Resulting in not sinning. Well, regeneration is what results, hopefully, in my ability to resist sin.

Then you say, if you sin, you've lost your faith. Really? People can still sin and still be believers.

People can still believe in God and trust in God and make a mistake and do something. They can choose to lust.

They can choose to, I'm not saying it's okay, but they can certainly do these things. It doesn't mean they stop believing in God. It doesn't mean they stop having faith in God.

This is what you're saying. That's the faith of the devil. Jeez, you have no clue what you're talking about.

If you really trust him, you'll obey him. If you're not obeying him, if you're not doing what he commands, don't tell me you trust him.

Jesse, you just misquoted. If you choose to sin, you're trusting the devil.

You just misquoted James 2, verses 18 and 19. The devil believes it's a difference between ascension and fiducia.

You took it right out of the context there and threw it right in the mixture. What you're saying, Jesse, is that you keep your salvation by your obedience to the moral law of God.

And what you're saying is that you can live in sin and in disobedience. I did not say that. I did not say that.

I've never said that. Sorry, guys, we talked too long. If a believer sins, do they have to pass judgment?

Jesse, Jesse, I never said that. I'm going with what you directly said. You directly said you lose your salvation every time you sin.

That's what you said. Then the corollary is that you keep it by obeying the law of God. This is what you said.

I never said anything about, hey, it's okay to sin. I never said that. Let me explain to you what I mean. Keeping the commandments is a fruit of faith.

Saving faith. What does a fruit of faith mean? Saving faith means you trust him and therefore you obey him.

So if you are not keeping his commandments, you don't have saving faith. Are you keeping the commandments all the time?

Sure I am. Right now I am. I could sin. I have a free will. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. But I am keeping his commandments.

The Bible says, whatsoever we ask, we receive of him because we keep his commandments and do those things that are part of his life.

Okay, when was? According to the Bible, Christians are keeping his commandments. So you're saying you don't even sin anymore?

Well, not usually. I mean, if I sin, I ask for forgiveness. I don't presume to be forgiven already.

And I would assume that if you sin, you ask God to forgive you. I never said that either, did I? You keep misrepresenting what I say about that.

If you sin - But you're the one telling me you keep the law. You're the one who's saying you keep yourself saved by what you do,

Jesse. That's a false gospel. No, no, no. You keep your salvation. No, you keep your salvation by keeping the faith.

The false gospel is what you're saying is that you don't need to repent. Faith is an obligation according to the law. God says you are to believe in him.

Your faith is not saving faith. Your faith is the law. Your faith is compatible with sin.

And that is not saving faith. No, it's not. Jesse, faith is something God commands you to have.

Excuse me, Exodus 20, one through 17. He commands that you believe in the true and living

God. Faith and believing in God is part of the law. You're saying that you have to keep your faith according to the law and not sin and to keep yourself saved.

Jesse, that's a false gospel. No, no, no. The false gospel of works is saying that you can earn your salvation by keeping the law.

That's what you do. I don't think that you need to repent and believe as a condition of mercy and the fruit of repenting and believing will be an obedient life.

That's very different from the justification by works that says you have to earn it and deserve it.

That's not what I'm saying. Those who repent and believe still deserve to go to hell. We are saved by the mercy of God, by the pardon of God, not by the merit of our works.

According to your system, you're equating faith with the moral law. You're the one saying you have to do this or to keep yourself right with God.

Keep yourself right means according to the law. Now, if you sin as a believer, do you ask

God to forgive you? Yeah. Why? Doesn't that imply you're not forgiven already?

No. It does not. So you're asking God to forgive you.

Wouldn't that insult him by implying that you're not forgiven when you already are? I don't apply my doctrinal dissertation to the

Almighty. What I do is I say, Lord, you know, I just did this ABC, whatever it is.

Lord, you know, what I actually say is cleanse me. That's what I say. Cleanse me,

Lord. But you don't ask him for forgiveness? Well, I say cleansed. That's the word I use.

Okay? Yes. Jesse, Jesse, you're preaching a false gospel. You're preaching that you maintain your salvation.

You're preaching that you don't need to repent of your sins, that faith - I didn't say that. I never said that. That is what you're saying here.

I'm saying that - When did I ever say you don't need to repent? Because you're saying a believer has faith.

You said people can choose to lust and they still believe in God. Hold on a second.

Jesse, where did I say you don't need to repent of your sins? Well, we argued with him for about 30 minutes saying you said you do not believe repentance is a precondition to forgiveness.

I didn't say, no, no, no. Hear me out. I never - Jesse, Jesse, you're twisting things.

That's what you said. You're twisting things. You said repenting of your sin is works of the law. That's what you said. Okay.

I said you don't need to repent in order to be saved. I said that self, I said that regeneration is what leads us to salvation or excuse me, regeneration leads us to the ability to repent.

And it's - You don't need to repent to be forgiven. No, because I don't have to keep the law to be forgiven because repentance means to keep the law.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You're saying you don't need to repent of your sins to be saved. And what I mean by that is you don't need to keep the law.

And choose to love. Jesse, Jesse, I said you don't need to, Jesse. So you're preaching a false gospel.

Jesse, I said you don't need to keep the law to be saved. And what

I'm saying when you talk about repentance is that you're applying the keeping of the law. That's how

I am saying this to you. You don't repeat that back when you say this and therefore you're misrepresenting me.

And that's a sin bearing false witness. Oops. I haven't misrepresented you at all. You need to repent right now and get your salvation back.

So let's wait while you do that. I haven't misrepresented you at all. You've said very clearly. Yes, you did. You can believe in God, meaning you have faith in God.

Come on, you're continuing your sin. You better not have a heart attack right now. Don't die right now. You'll go to hell. You don't need to repent of your sins to be saved.

You misrepresented me. You bore false witness. I did not. Yes, you did. I'm telling you you did.

I'm sitting here. You're the one misrepresenting what I'm saying. You're the one who consistently changes the word of God and you change what

I say. I keep saying, it's not what I'm saying. I keep saying to you, I did not say this. And you keep saying, yes, you did.

I'm telling you, I never said you don't have to repent. I never said that. What I did say is you don't have to repent in order to be saved.

And then I corrected you and says, when you say repentance is keeping the law.

I didn't say that. You said that. You said repentance is keeping the law. Exactly what I'm saying. If you already know that, then why didn't you repeat it back?

Again, you're proving yourself as very false witness. I didn't say repentance is keeping the law. You said that repentance is keeping the law.

I said repentance is keeping the law. I said, when you say this, when you say repentance, it's keeping the law because you're doing what's right according to the law.

This is your position. I didn't say that. You're misrepresenting me. I apologize. There's no intention of doing that.

I'm writing down what you were saying. I'm honestly trying to represent you accurately. I have a big thing about trying to represent people accurately.

If I misrepresent you, tell me that I will stand corrected. Never intended to do that. Repentance is not keeping the law.

Repentance is a change of mind about breaking the law. And the fruit of that repentance is keeping.

How do you know if you've repented? What's the standard? You should have the fruit of repentance called keeping the commandment.

What's the standard by which you know if you've repented? Keeping the commandments is the fruit of repentance. Okay, so repentance means keeping the commandments.

No, keeping the commandments is the fruit of repentance. Repentance itself is a change of mind. So repentance is not keeping the commandments.

It's a fruit of keeping the commandments? I'm sorry, what? All right, let me say it one more time as simple as I can for you, Matt. Repenting.

Please, don't talk to me like that. Repenting of your sin is a change of mind about breaking the commandments that results in the fruit of repentance of keeping the commandments.

That's not the same thing as saying that keeping the commandments is the repentance. The repentance is a change of mind.

Okay, okay. Repentance is a change of mind. Okay, so repentance is a change of mind. Actually, that's the

Greek metanoeo, a change of mind. Yes, it's a change of mind about sinning, the fruit of which is keeping the commandments.

Okay, so is lust something that occurs in me?

I mean, in us as people, that's what I mean. Are you talking about the involuntary desires of the body or the choice and consent of the heart to lust after a woman with your eyes or with your mind?

Okay, coveting, don't covet. 10 commandments, don't covet. That's internal.

It's not something outside of you. So it's an internal action. It's an attitude of the mind.

Are you talking about a voluntary or an involuntary action? Okay, now let me explain. Coveting is something that we do.

Voluntarily or involuntarily? It doesn't matter. Coveting is, okay, let me finish.

Coveting is an action performed by an individual. God says, don't covet. He doesn't say voluntarily or involuntarily.

He says, don't do it. A voluntary coveting or an involuntary coveting is still coveting, therefore it's still sin.

The coveting, whether - Temptation is the, say, the involuntary desires of the body.

The commandment implies that coveting is voluntary. Thou shall not covet implies that you have a choice in the matter.

If you are choosing to covet your neighbor's things, then that's sin.

But if you're tempted that they have something that you would like and you have this involuntary desire for gratification through that, that's called temptation.

That's very different from sin. Temptation is involuntary, sin is voluntary.

So coveting is a voluntary action of the will or of what, would you call it that?

Of the will? Yeah, a voluntary action of the will, a choice of the will. Okay, so then it's not something outside of you, it's only internalized.

It's a matter of the heart, of the will, yeah. So then by me coveting someone else's car, they don't know it, nobody knows it, just God and me, and I recognize that I shouldn't covet.

So I say, I'm now gonna not covet, so I don't covet. That's all that's happened right there.

I've kept the law, haven't I? Yeah, well, coveting does not mean that you want a car like theirs.

Coveting means you want their car. You're not supposed to covet - I want their car. You want their car. I want that car.

I want that car. You might want a car that's similar to theirs, that's not coveting. I want their car.

You're coveting their car. You shouldn't covet your neighbor's stuff, yeah. Okay, I want their car, and so nobody knows this.

It occurs inside of me, and I realize, hey, I shouldn't say that, I shouldn't want that. So I say, Lord, forgive me of that, cleanse me of that.

I don't wanna do that. I turn from that. It's solely and completely something that happens internally.

It's a change of mind. Yeah, change of mind. So then repentance is a change of mind. Repentance is keeping the commandment of not coveting.

Totally internal. No, the change of mind results in now you are not coveting, which is keeping -

No, you said - Keeping the law is the not coveting. You said repentance - No, going from coveting to not coveting is the change of mind.

Not coveting is the fruit of repentance, yes. You said repentance is a change of mind that results in keeping the law, but the issue with coveting is the change of mind.

So if a believer commits adultery on his wife - Jesse, I just showed you.

I just showed you the issue of coveting is an internal thing. And you're saying repentance results in the action out there that you stop, and that's what keeps you right.

I'm saying that repentance, the very thing you said is repentance is an issue of the internal heart, which is what coveting is.

That turning from that is simply an internal thing, is keeping the law. And you're saying that's what keeps you safe. You are saying that you keep your commandments in order to be safe.

You're preaching - No, I'm saying repenting of coveting is an internal thing.

And then not coveting is an internal thing. That doesn't make not coveting and repenting of coveting one and the same thing.

Repenting of your sin is a condition of mercy, a condition of pardon.

The Bible says, let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts. Let him return to the Lord, our

God, and he will abundantly pardon. Forsaking your sin is a condition of pardon, but not sinning is not a way to earn or merit your salvation.

That would be a false gospel. That's how you keep your salvation though, by maintaining your position of not sinning.

Because you said every time you sin, you lose your salvation. Every time you commit a sin, every time you covet,

I just lost my salvation, I coveted. I voluntarily, I lost my salvation. Okay, I'm not coveting now,

I got it back. Don't sin and you don't have to worry about it. Just don't sin and you don't have to worry about losing your salvation.

Because you see, I don't have to worry about it. You wanna know why I don't worry about it? Walk by faith. Every time you -

You want me not to worry about my salvation? Well, because you're part of the elect and Jesus died for you in a limited atonement and his righteousness is imputed to you.

Now, how do you know Jesus died for you? Man, that is so good. I love that. I don't have to worry about keeping the law to be saved.

How do you know Jesus died for you? Because I'm regenerated. How do you know you're regenerated? Because I confess the doctrines of truth that only the believers will do because the unbeliever will not receive the things of God but their foolishness to him.

1 Corinthians 2 .14. And since I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, imputation of Christ's righteousness, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that's a sign of regeneration.

Can false converts confess those doctrines? They can do it intellectually, but I know my own heart.

I'm not doing it intellectually. I'm doing it by faith. How do you know that you're doing it by faith and not as a false convert?

Because I know. But wouldn't a false convert say that he knows that he's not a false convert?

I don't know. Let's talk to a false convert and see what he says. No, I don't think you have any - Jesse, you're asking me about me.

I am. 1 John 5 .13. These things are written - You could be deceived in thinking that you're a true convert when you're really a false convert.

And if Jesus didn't die for everyone, he might not have died for you. Your faith - And you could be deceived - Your faith might be that of a false convert.

You could be deceived thinking that you're keeping yourself right by pleasing God, by keeping the law.

And that's why you're gonna be right with God. So it works, the sword cuts both ways. Grace is what keeps us from sinning.

The Bible says he is able to keep us from falling. All credit goes to him. He's the one who's, as long as I'm cooperating and not resisting, he's keeping me on the straight and narrow.

That grace is not a license to sin. Grace is to keep you from sin. But no, if Jesus didn't die for everyone and false converts are people who think they're saved, who might sound right, say the right doctrines, but they really aren't saved and Jesus didn't die for false converts, then at the end of the day, you might be a false convert

Jesus didn't die for. No, I'm not a false convert, Jesse. Well, a false convert would say the same thing.

Jesse, Jesus came to me when I was 17 years old. And he saved me. Joseph Smith said the same thing. No, he didn't.

He said Jesus came to him or an angel appeared to him. He said Moroni appeared.

He said, God, the Father and Jesus later appeared to him to give the Book of Mormon. And then he boasted in History of the

Church, volume six, page 408, excuse me, 406, History of the Church, volume six, page 408, 409, that he did more than Jesus to keep a church together.

Look, Jesus came to me when I was 17 years old and I was saved. I was reduced to a pile of just sobbing repentance in the presence of incredible holiness.

It was him. And that was 17. I'm 60. I've calmed down a lot since that moment of salvation.

I know I'm saved because I am in the faith and because I have constantly defended that faith because I'm constantly confessing

Jesus Christ as Lord. Just as the Bible says, he who confesses not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, 1

John chapter four. And 1 John 5, 13 says, these things are written so you may know you have eternal life. I know I have eternal life.

And it's not dependent upon my ability as it is with you. It's not dependent upon what I can do and my ability to keep the law as it is with you.

It's not dependent upon my ability to stay faithful as it is with you. My salvation rests in Christ's ability, not my ability.

Your salvation rests in your ability. You're the one, Jesse, preaching a false gospel. You're the one preaching that you must keep your law in order to be saved.

You're the one who's teaching this. You're saying we can break the law and still be saved. You're saying that saving faith is compatible with not believing in God again.

That saving faith is compatible with coveting and saving. Let me address it.

Let me address it. It's compatible with murder too. Let me address it. You're saying you're walking in the faith or keeping the faith.

I don't know if you really are, if you have all this sin in your life that you're committing. Do you want me to address it? Then, you know, your idea is that you can stay saved even while you're sinning and that you don't need to repent to be forgiven.

You want me to address it? I think you have. No, I haven't. Want me to address that specifically now?

You're the one saying that I'm teaching and you're saying it's okay to go out and sin and just be a sinner. I didn't say it's okay. You're not saying it's okay.

You're just saying that you do. Yeah, I do say that. You're just saying that you do sin. Yeah, you know what? I am not perfect.

And that you're in the faith. So you're walking in sin. Jesse, can I finish for me? Can I finish?

Jesse. I'd like to, go ahead. Jesse, I know my own heart. I know that there's issues of pride that surface.

I know that there's issues of covetous that surface. I know there's bits of arrogance. I know there's bits of lust.

And believe it or not, I've actually been selfish in the past week. My wife's got medical problems. You should stop it.

My wife's got medical problems. And you know what? It's a little bit inconvenient sometimes. And then I'm a made aware of the selfishness of my own heart.

And I say, Lord, Oh Lord, you know, that is so un, just not like you. Please just cleanse me.

Teach me how to be like you. See. But God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

You're saying God gives grace to the proud. Jesse, that's not what I'm saying.

You're under grace and you're proud. That's what you said. Jesse, what I'm saying is that I'm not perfect.

I know my heart. Apparently you do far better than I do when it comes to your walk with God.

But I know me. I know that there are things in me I don't like. There's things that I struggle. If I sin,

I don't make these comforting excuses of I'm covered under imputed righteousness and saved by a penal subject.

It sure is comforting to me to know that my performance doesn't mean if I'm saved or not.

Please forgive me if I sin. I don't, I asked for cleansing.

I asked for this. Jesse, you misrepresent our position. Grace is compatible with a life of sin or that faith.

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. What did Paul the Apostle say in Romans 7?

The things I want to do, I don't do. You say - What did he say in Romans 6? That he was free from sin. Romans 7 is what

I asked for. Romans 7 is pre -conversion. Romans - Jesse, let him finish his point, please.

Jesse, he said in Romans 7, the things I don't want to do, present tense, not past tense.

He says, who will deliver me from this body of death? Which you probably don't know what that means. But he was talking in the present tense about his struggles.

Are you better than Paul the Apostle? Paul said his Christian life, he had a conscience that was quote, void of offense.

In other words, as a Christian, he was not aware of any sin in his life. Romans 7 is not the

Christian life. Romans 7, Paul is giving a narrative of what happens when an unconverted sinner is convicted by the law.

And he uses the present tense just to tell the narrative. That doesn't mean that that's his -

He says, I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is my flesh. So he's not talking about himself?

Well, some phrases according to Bible dictionaries, some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in the

Greek. These are termed historical presence. For example, yeah, in many, many examples where Jesus is talking or telling, you know, stories in the gospels, it's using the present tense, but to describe an event that's already passed.

Stories are sometimes told in the present tense. As a Christian, Paul said he had a conscience that was void of offense.

And that's the Christian life. He said in Acts 23, one, Acts 23, one, three, that he had a conscience void of offense.

The man in Romans 7 did not have a conscience void of offense. If you relate that to Romans 7,

Romans 7 is about an unconverted sinner. So that's a problem. So it's the unconverted sinner who's a slave of God who does not seek for God, who does no good.

He's the one saying, oh man, I got all these problems. Look at me, the things I don't wanna do I do and all this stuff.

That's what that is, the unbeliever. Even though Paul had said earlier that they do not seek for God, they do no good.

So how is it that someone who does not seek for God, who does no good is sitting here struggling with his sin?

Because he's convicted by the law. The law is the inner man that wants to do good or the conscience wants to do good, wants to obey.

He's convicted, but it's like a cigarette smoker who like he wants to give up smoking, but he's got these sinful habits.

And when it really comes down to it, he keeps doing it. He's in this bondage. So he says, who will deliver me from the bondage of this death, from this body of death?

I thank God through Jesus Christ. So he didn't get saved until at the end of the chapter, verse 24, 25, 26, he says,

I thank God through Jesus Christ, the Lord. So that's when salvation occurs. If you look at Romans 6, 7, and 8 in context,

Romans 6 is about the Christian life. You've been set free from sin. Romans 8 says that there's no condemnation of those who are in Christ who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.

The man in Romans 7 is not free from sin. He's walking after the flesh. He doesn't have a conscience that's void of offense.

He's not a Christian. And to take - He doesn't have a conscience is exactly what's happening in there.

Of course he has a conscience. That's why he's saying what he's saying. Doesn't have a conscience void of offense. He's aware of his offense.

His conscience is guilty. Okay. You mean, oh, he's aware of his guilt. He's aware of his, but Paul said, he had a conscience void of offense.

So the whole thing, the whole thing is about, the whole thing is about an unbeliever, even though Paul is referencing himself, but it's not really him, it's somebody else.

Well, he's telling a narrative. I was alive without the law once, but sin revived and I died. So he's talking about the entrance of the law.

That's your position. That's your position. You know, I think it's horrible to represent

Romans 7 as the best a Christian can hope for. We have real victory and deliverance over sin.

And you're saying the best that we can hope for is just sinning and not being able to stop. The Romans 7 didn't stop there.

I didn't say that. I never said that. He found freedom. I never said that.

That's not the best that the Christian has to hope for. The best that we have to offer is our faith and our trust and the love and the cleansing work of Jesus Christ.

And that we're gonna spend eternity with him. And the best that I have to tell people is you don't keep your salvation by your goodness, by your ability to keep the law in repentance, by your maintenance of your position with an infinitely holy

God. What I tell people is you need a true Jesus who kept the law, who never sinned, who bore your sin in his body on the cross.

That's what it says. And he died with it. And if you trust in what he has done, then you will be forgiven of your sins and you can be guaranteed of eternal security with him.

Oh yes, we'll struggle. Yes, we'll fail. But you can always go back to the cross and you'll never have to worry about losing your salvation and then walk in the error of trying to keep it with God and end up saying,

I don't sin anymore. I keep myself right with the holy God through my faith and through my ability to keep the moral law.

In Matthew 18, Jesus taught a whole parable about someone who lost their salvation. A whole parable about the unforgiving servant who was pardoned, genuinely pardoned, but then he wouldn't forgive others.

So then his pardon was revoked and that man went to hell. And Jesus told this whole parable and then he said, so will my father do to you if you don't forgive one another from your heart.

So he put conditions on staying saved. Just like there's conditions to get saved, there's conditions to staying saved.

The Jesus of the Bible, if you're talking about being saved by Jesus, he doesn't save you in your sin.

It says he'll save his people from their sin. When you're truly - Of course, we teach that. You're delivered from a life of sinning.

You don't continue to be saved in sin. Of course we teach that. We teach that. If you're sinning every day in word, thought, and deed, then you haven't been saved from sin.

No, no, no, no, no. When he says saved from sin, we're talking about this power of sin upon us that kills us and destroys us.

We're saved from that. It doesn't mean that we then automatically are perfect. Jesse, the standard of the law in Deuteronomy 27, 26 is perfection.

Paul quotes this in Galatians 3 .10. You've got to keep all of the law. And it's the intention of the heart as well as the work of the hand.

That's the standard. You're the one telling people that they can be sinless and they keep their selves right with God by their sinless condition.

Sinlessness is marked by the obedience to the law. That's why we know what sin is.

And sin is keeping, I mean, excuse me, your righteousness before God, your repentance is keeping the law.

You're the one who's not giving anybody any help. You're the one who's putting them back under the law in order to keep themselves right.

To be under the law, the one who's under the law is the man in Romans 7. The Bible says, sin shall not have dominion over you for you're not under law, but under grace.

So if you're the man in Romans 7, you're under the law. Anyone who is sinning is under the law.

If you're under grace, then you're not gonna be sinning. The Bible says, sin will not have dominion over you.

You're under grace instead of the law. And the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared unto all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live righteously and soberly in the law.

So if you're under grace, if you're under the influence of grace, you're living holy. If you're still sinning, if you're living a life of sin, then you're just under the influence of the law.

You know you should be right, but you're not. You're guilty and you know it, but you're not living any better. And you're not doing what the law requires.

Because you're not under the influence. Jesse, are you doing all of what the law requires? Yeah, I love

God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. And I love my neighbor as myself. And that's what God requires.

Not more than you're capable of. Wait, wait, wait. With all your heart, with all your soul. So you know that -

With all that I have, with all that I have. I love God with all that I have. I've submitted to him. I hate sin. I never wanna sin again.

I've been there. I've done that. It's not worth it. I am 100 % submitted to God, to the best of my knowledge, to the best of my ability.

And that's all that he requires of us. With all I. You realize that's the law. Yeah, that's the fruit of repentance.

That's the fruit of pain. No, no. That's the fruit of grace. Loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Yes. And loving God and loving your neighbor. That's the law. That's Deuteronomy 6, 5 and Leviticus 19, 18.

I understand that, yeah. What the old estimate requires. You are saying. Promises. You're saying that you keep your salvation by keeping the law of loving

God and loving your neighbor. The result of my regeneration by the spirit of God is that I have a heart now that keeps his commandments.

And you're saying you can be regenerated and have faith and be under grace and still break the law and break his commandments and sin every day.

That's not grace. That's not faith. That's not being saved. It is grace. Through Christ. It's not regeneration.

Certainly it's saved. It's grace and that God continues to work through me in spite of what I am. And it means

I'm saved because I'm depending on the cross. My dependents are my keeper of the law. No, no, no.

You're not trusting Christ when you're sinning. Yes, I am. No, yeah, sheesh. that somehow sin is gonna benefit you.

Of course I'm not trusting Christ when I'm sinning, but my trust in, I'm not saved by my obedience to the law.

Well, if you're not trusting Christ when you're sinning, then you can't claim to be justified by faith when you're sinning. Yes, I can be justified by faith.

But you're not trusting Christ when you sin. What it means when I say I sin, it means that I have these momentary oopses, whatever you wanna call it, where you blow it.

That's it. Just because I do that - Every second? Yeah, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

Okay, it doesn't matter. Let's say once a day, whatever. The thing is, I don't lose my salvation for that once a day thing.

I don't lose my salvation because I sin. If you're sinning every day, you never got saved.

It's not even a matter about losing it. You don't even have it if you're sinning every day. All right, okay. You know -

But yeah, Jesus taught, if you don't forgive others, you'll lose your forgiveness. Yeah, yeah, I know. That's what he taught in Matthew 18.

No, he didn't say that. That's not what's going on there. Let me show you something. In Romans 3, 28,

Paul the Apostle says, we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

That's right. Apart from the works of the law. That's right. Okay. Jesus quotes the law in Matthew 22, 37,

Matthew 22, 39, love God, love your neighbor, has been the summation of the law. He says, this is what you got to do.

Romans 3, 28, Paul says you justify without keeping the law. Yes, that's right.

Apart from keeping the law. You don't keep the law to get saved, you keep the law if you are saved. Big difference.

Okay, you should let me finish the point. Romans 3, 28, we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Apart from the work of loving God and loving your neighbor. Yes. Yeah, you're not saved by loving

God and loving your neighbor. You don't earn your salvation. I didn't say by, I said apart from, without. Yeah, that's right.

Salvation does not depend upon you earning your salvation by keeping the law. You said.

It does require that you repent of your sins to be forgiven and as a result of that repentance.

You said. And your faith in Christ, you will consequently keep the commandments. You said you're keeping the law, you're loving

God with all your heart and you're loving your neighbor completely and totally. So you're saying that you're keeping your place with God by that.

No, I'm saying as a result of my faith in Christ, as a result of his grace in my life, as a result of the regeneration of the

Holy Spirit, I am living a holy life. So then what you're really saying is. Generated by the

Holy Spirit. If you're not living a holy life. So what you're saying is. Without holiness, no man will see God. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall.

Jesse, so what you're saying is you're justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Yeah, I'm justified by living faith, not demonic faith.

I didn't say that. I am justified. Are you justified by faith alone in Christ alone?

Yes, that results in a holy life. Yes. Okay, true faith. It's not demonic faith.

Okay, come on. We're talking about true faith. You said yourself you're not trusting Christ when you're sinning.

So sinning is incompatible. Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. One thing at a time here.

So you're saying then you're justified by faith alone in Christ alone, right? Yeah, by grace alone.

Great, good Calvinist thought. Good Calvinist teaching. Good. And as a result of faith and Christ and grace, the fruit of that is that I'm living a holy life.

I'm trying to live a holy life. I'm not as good as you are. I'm sorry, I'm not as good as you are. I'm not as holy and sanctified as you.

I don't care about your excuses, just do it. Jesus said, be perfect. Okay, just do it.

He said, go and sin. Can I give a confession to you? Can I give a confession to you? Whatever sin you got in your life, just give it up.

See, I was on that couch a few years ago praying very deeply, confessing everything I could possibly confess for 20 minutes.

I mean, everything you could possibly think of. And I said in the middle of this prayer, and Lord, thank you for not making me like the

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. And I realized then my arrogance. Well, that man went home unjustified.

Yes, I've realized my arrogance at that point. I realized that I was not as pure in my heart as I thought

I was. And because of that, I said to my Lord, you know,

Lord, I am sorry for that arrogant, foolish statement. Please, Lord, just cleanse me.

Lord, make my heart better. Now, you see, that's what I do as a

Christian. But because I did that, and I did, it doesn't mean I lost my salvation for five seconds.

I didn't jump in and out. You have to humble yourself to receive the grace of God. You're unresisting.

When I said that, when I said that, did I lose my salvation for, I don't know, 20 seconds?

When you humbled yourself, he gave you grace. But when you - Here's the question. When I said, thank you, not making that a moment of joy, did

I lose my salvation right there? Oh, it sounds like pride to me. Did I lose my salvation right there?

If it was a sin, then you certainly did. Why else would you ask him to forgive you?

Why else would you ask him to cleanse you? So I lost my salvation there. And then when did I get it back? If a believer sins, he repents, and he humbles himself, and God gives him a fresh forgiveness.

Well, here's a question. I didn't know that pride was in my heart until I said that. So was

I saved in my pride? When God reveals something to you, you are obligated to immediately repent of it.

I can't be saved in my sins now, can I? Or else you remain impenitent. Pride's a condition of the heart.

That was my heart it came out of. I'm not, you're saying it can't be saved in your sins. I'm in the sin of the pride of my own heart.

Was I saved during that time? No, you have to humble yourself to receive the grace of God.

If you're proud, if you're arrogant, then you don't have saving grace.

I didn't know I was being prideful. Was I sin? Was I, whatever it is, I was prideful.

It's your fault for not knowing. You should have asked God to reveal it sooner. You should have humbled yourself sooner.

There's a difference between incapable ignorance and willful ignorance.

And so the pride was in my heart. I didn't know it was there. Was I saved with that pride being in my heart, even though I didn't know it was there?

Was I saved or not saved? Let me confess one of my sins to you. And then just like you're doing here, and let me ask you a question.

When I first got clean and sober 17 years ago, out of drugs and alcohol,

I did well with my sobriety for the first few months. Then I had a, and I was serving the

Lord. I was born again. I'm reading the Bible. I'm saved, true convert, trusting in Christ for my salvation, you know, grace, faith,

Christ, all that. Then after a few months of sobriety, I was tempted to hang out with some old friends.

So I hung out with some old friends. They tempted me to drink. I drank a little bit, led to more, and I relapsed and got drunk that night when

I was 16 years old, new convert, only a few months.

Now, when I got drunk, was I still saved? Because what the

Holy Spirit came to me and convicted me and said, look, the Bible says drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God.

You need to repent or perish. And I felt I was under the wrath of God. I was convicted by the

Holy Spirit and I needed to repent of that drunkenness. Would you say that a believer who gets drunk is still saved even though they're in their drunkenness?

Yes. But the Bible says drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God. It says in 1

Corinthians 6, 9, those who practice this stuff, it's a whole litany of things. You keep misusing the word of God.

Drunkards, those who are in the practice of it. You make a mistake, you fall. It doesn't mean you're not a Christian because you screwed up, you didn't keep the law.

So you can get drunk once and not be a drunkard? A drunkard in the context of 1

Corinthians 6, 9, like I'm telling you, is the context. It says, and those were what you were.

Those were some, yeah, they got saved from that. Jesse, Jesse. But if you get drunk, you're a drunkard. If you murder one time.

Then I'm a murderer because I've hated people unrighteously in my heart. Right, you don't have to murder every day to be a murderer.

You don't have to. Oh, you have no idea what I've done. Look, Jesse. See. I'm gonna go back and I'm gonna ask you the question.

A Christian can get drunk and still be saved and not be a drunkard. That's not right.

I didn't say he could not be a drunkard. Jesse, you're good at twisting things. Let me clarify.

Please do. What I'm saying is that salvation is not dependent on my ability to be good and keep the law.

I'm saying salvation is not dependent on my goodness. If I go out and make a mistake, if I do something

I shouldn't do, whatever it might be, I'm not saying what murder, that's okay. I'm not saying that.

Let's say get drunk, okay? Let's say I go out and get drunk. I don't lose my salvation because I got drunk.

That's a false gospel. That's a false gospel. No, it's not a false gospel. That's turning grace into a license to sin.

Wait a minute. Jesse, you need to repent. I never said it was a license to sin.

I never said it. Jesse, let me finish. You keep doing this.

Jesse. When someone sins by getting drunk, it's not okay to sin.

It's not okay to - But they're still saved. It's not okay to do it, but they're still saved because their salvation is not dependent on their keeping the law.

You're saying they're - On their goodness. You're not saying it's okay. I get that. I'm not saying you think it's okay, but you're saying it is wrong and they're still saved.

And I'm saying that is a license to do wrong. No, it's not a license to do wrong. Look, I believe

I cannot lose my salvation. I can have a drink. Now, I'm not trying to stumble you in any way, but I can have a margarita if I want to have a margarita.

You're getting buzzed or tipsy? What if I do? What if I go, hey, I just noticed a little something. Yeah, then you need to repent.

You're not saved if you're getting - If I lost my salvation right there. That's right. Yes. Okay, okay.

Yes, brothers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, so that's, no, I'm a drunkard because I noticed a little bit of something?

Yeah, if you're drinking and you're getting buzzed or tipsy, you're drunk. Okay, so then

I've lost my salvation. Wow, I guess I shouldn't have a margarita. Make sure that I keep the tequila under a certain level that I don't, because I could use one ounce on a full -

Wait a minute, Jesse. Jesse, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Jesse, wait, wait, wait, Jesse. Jesse.

Your theology. Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. So I can use one ounce of tequila on a full stomach with a margarita, not get any buzz at all.

But if I forget, I didn't have a hamburger that night and I use an ounce of tequila and I get a little buzz, oh,

I just lost my salvation even though I wasn't intending to. Oh man, what am

I going to do now that I lost my salvation again? I muted

Jesse's microphone because he was speaking over there. Jesse, unmute your microphone, please. Yeah, you better not walk the line.

You know, you messed with alcohol at all because if you're going to get drunk, the Bible says drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God.

That's getting drunk? If I get a little buzz, that means I lost my salvation? Your theology that you can get drunk and be a

Christian is why R .C. Sproul Jr. got arrested in BWI. Your theology is why

R .C. Sproul Jr. is driving around drunk because you can be drunk and be a Christian. So wait a minute, I said, if I'm at home,

I get a little bit of a buzz, then I'm a drunkard and I've lost my salvation.

That's what I believe. That's a shock to you, but that's what I believe. Wow. So we should never give - I don't mess with it.

I don't touch it. We should never give strong drink to anybody, should we? It's like saying, can

I just look at a little bit of pornography and not be an adulterer? Stick with alcohol. I just get a little bit drunk and I'll be a drunkard.

So we should not give any strong drink to anybody, right? Can I just tell a little bit of a lie and not be a liar?

Yes, you keep asking the same thing and not answering. Can we give a strong drink to anybody? No, I wouldn't say strong drink at all.

Wine is not a strong drink. Wine, you know, strong drink would be like hard liquor.

Proverbs 31 .6, give strong drink to him who's perishing. You know, the argument of unfermented wine and all that.

Oh, come on. Wait, wait, wait, wait. It says give strong drink to him who's perishing. So if I give a strong drink to someone who's perishing, it says eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we will die.

That's not a good philosophy. Jesse, Jesse, Proverbs 31 .6, give strong drink to him who's perishing.

So if I do that, if I lost my salvation by giving strong drink to someone. Yeah, I don't think that's something you should be doing.

The Bible says be not drunk on wine. The Bible says strong drink is raging. Whoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

The Bible says be sober minded. I mean, now you're using Bible verses to justify getting drunk.

It says, I didn't never said I'm justifying getting drunk. Did I ever say I'm justifying getting drunk?

I think we're way off topic. To bring it, I wanna just. Did I ever say

I'm justifying, Jesse? My belief. Jesse, you keep misrepresenting me.

You keep twisting things. Did I ever say I'm justifying getting drunk? Well, you're justifying getting a little bit of buzzed and tipsy or stuff.

I didn't say I'm justifying getting buzzed either. Well, what do you mean by justified?

You're not saying it's okay to go out and get drunk, but you are saying if you go out and get drunk, you're still saved.

And I'm saying that is a license to get out, go out and get drunk. A license means you can do it without.

Oh, I guess I'm not regenerate then if I think like that. I guess I'm not regenerate if I say, hey, you know what?

I can go out and sin all I want. Well, it means that you are at least backslidden from your regenerate state by your free will.

If I have a drink with my wife. That were given on to you. Warns about falling away from the faith.

Jesse. And parting from the faith. And you can't depart from something you were not in to begin with.

So Jesse, if I have a drink with my wife and I happen to get a little buzz, accidentally, not intentionally, you say

I lost my salvation. I don't think you should be messing with alcohol at all.

You're saying I lost my salvation. If Jesus drank wine and strong drink is right here in Proverbs 31, six.

But look, so you're saying, this is the point I'm trying to make. You're saying I got a little buzz, lost my salvation.

No, I believe if you willfully sin after you receive a knowledge of the truth, I willfully.

There may not be 45 % if you are willfully. You have no idea. Look, that's your way to take it out of context. Hebrews 10, 26.

If I willfully make a margarita and I drink it. That's what I said. And I get a buzz.

If you sin willfully after you receive a knowledge of the truth, there may be no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fear for a lot of looking out of.

Have you ever sinned willfully even once? Yeah, I've sinned since I was converted.

Have you ever sinned willfully since you've been saved? I just told you I got drunk as a new convert.

Then there's no more sacrifice for you and you can't be saved. No, the blood of Christ does not cover willful sin.

So you can't persist in it. You have to repent of it. The blood of Christ does not cover willful sin.

Not while you're in sin. You have to repent of it in order to be forgiven. The blood of Christ does not cover willful sin.

Do you know what I mean by that? The blood of Christ. I don't know what you mean. The blood of Christ covers sin that you have repented of, not sin that you are persisting in.

That's what I mean by that. Okay, so, okay. The blood of Christ. That just sounded so Mormon to me.

I'm saying the blood of Christ covers sin that you have repented of, not sins that you are persisting in or impenitent over.

So if - Wait a minute, wait a minute. I repented of my relapse as a new convert. So I was forgiven afresh.

I prayed, God, please forgive me. Which implies I wasn't already forgiven. And I got a fresh forgiveness.

Have you repented of all your pride? That's what the atonement does. The atonement allows forgiveness for everybody if they will repent of the sins they need forgiveness for.

And so if they don't repent, they're not forgiven. So if they don't keep the law, they go to hell. The Bible says he shed his blood for the remission of sin.

And yet after the atonement, Jesus said, this is the blood of the new covenant shed for the remission of sins.

Now Jesus said he was shedding his blood for the remission of sins. Yeah, we have no problem with that. After the atonement, men are told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

Repent of this thy wickedness that the thought of your heart might be forgiven you. So they had to repent and be baptized in order to be forgiven?

So forgiveness is made available at Calvary, but it is not actually granted until repentance.

So if a believer, if my future sins are not forgiven already if I sin in the future, I need to ask

God for forgiveness. I need to repent. It's not a one time, all your past, present and future sins are forgiven.

No, if you sin, there's forgiveness available through the blood of Jesus Christ, if you repent.

So anyways, it's late. I don't know how long we've been doing this. I don't wanna continue for much longer. Two and a half hours.

Two and a half hours. Maybe we can do this again sometime now that I've installed Google Hangouts.

I think we've gone onto a lot of rabid trails. I wouldn't mind debating once saved, always saved, perseverance of the saints, conditional security, and some of these other things, the nature of repentance, the nature of regeneration.

I think we've gotten off topic from - That's what happens. Yeah, from just the atonement.

Anyways, I'll tell you what I will do. I'm writing a book on the atonement called the Vicarious Atonement of Christ in the

Moral Government of God. I'll send you a free copy when it's done and I would love for you to read it and review it, critique it.

Maybe we can do a discussion when that's done. There's so many scriptures

I would have liked to have shared that I felt pressed for time during my five minute opening.

This is where the real rubber hits the road. We have this very kind of discussion. Now, I'm sure we could each make a parting shot at each other.

Why don't we just quit? We'll do something later. We'll do something later. Yeah. Hey, I can debate this stuff all day long and not hold any hard feelings for you.

I - Same here. This is important. I think some theological disagreements are semantics.

Some are really fundamental disagreements. I think our debate is a little bit of both. Some semantics.

We both believe if a believer sins, they should ask for forgiveness. They should repent. We both believe that. But how that is compatible with our theology, that's different.

We certainly do have some fundamental disagreements, obviously, but - Yeah, I believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, not in my ability to keep the law or be good in it.

I believe grace is for the repentant, not for the impenitent. So, you know, not for those who just persist in their sins, but for those who actually turn to the

Lord. And that's who grace is for. Well, maybe we wanna talk sometime about the nature of our depravity and the ability and inability that free will instills.

I assume you believe in prevenient grace. Is that correct? I don't know. Do you? We already debated free will,

Matt. Did you forget? Oh, no, I haven't forgotten. But it's always a good topic.

No, I sent you my book on free will. No, I believe free will was never lost.

So, you know, the idea of prevenient grace implies that free will was lost. Yeah, I'm just saying that in a defined term.

That would be prevenient justice. Do you know what the difference is between libertarian? I mean, we don't get into this, but you know what? Yeah, I believe in libertarian free will.

Okay. We debated this. I'm surprised you don't remember. No, I remember.

It's just that free will is far more important in our discussions now than ever.

Because you assume certain conditions of the unbeliever. You beg the question in this.

And just because we debated it once doesn't mean it's all settled. Because there wasn't any cross -examination period in that time. That's true.

So, if we need to discuss that and go back and cross -examine each other. We could debate in the future the conditions of salvation and the nature of meeting those conditions.

That would be - What are we doing here? We already went over that. I really wanted to stay on the atonement issue.

Well, we did. You brought up Acts 2 .38 and other stuff. I just pursued where you went. I have no problem sticking with the issue.

In connection to the nature of the atonement. I brought it up in connection to the nature of the atonement that after the atonement's been made, forgiveness of our debt still needs to be sought.

So, that has implications on the nature of the atonement itself. We would say the same thing. All right.

Well, it's 11 .30. It's late here. But I appreciate the talk.

And again, I'll send you a free copy of my atonement book when that's done. Sure. That'd be good. Appreciate it.

Okay. Thanks a lot. All right. Take care. All right. Okay. All right.

Now, I need a rest room break. So, let me ask you guys. You wanna continue just having kind of a discussion?

We can open this up to anybody who wants to come in here and whoever. Both sides, whatever. You guys wanna do that?

Or Cy, is it too late for you or what? Yeah, it's getting late for me, but I'm gonna have to shoot. Okay. Does anybody else wanna continue and have a little, oh, man,

I could use a restroom, a little discussion about it? Because people are sometimes hyped or eh, whatever.

Up to you guys. Let me hear what you wanna say in the - I'd say people are wanting to do it.

People are wanting to do it? Yes, yes, yes. Okay. Well, I'll tell you what. What I'll do is, oh, man.

Guys, I have to use a restroom. I'm about to tell you. Let me use the restroom.

Let me close this out. This is what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna close this out, period. And then what

I'll do is go to CARM. Give me just five minutes. Gotta use a restroom. And it'll take me a bit to close this out because it's part of the debate, whatever.

And then I'll reopen another room and I'll put the link and the stuff on CARM on the right -hand side, okay?

I'll do it within five minutes. You have to go to CARM. I gotta use a restroom.

So, okay, closing this out. Just go to the CARM website on the right -hand side. Won't matter what page. It's all be the same.

You'll see it, okay? I'll call it after show and we'll just talk. See you guys. God bless.