What are my Beliefs?

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics.

I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and today I'm kind of doing something, well,

not super different, but usually I have a guest on to talk about some topic.

Today I'm basically just going to be talking about myself.

I hope whoever's listening might find this a little interesting, but I thought it'd be a

good idea to kind of unpack some of my own theological positions with

respect to certain topics that might be of interest to some folks.

I do place great value in the fact that one is able to survey their

own beliefs and explain why they hold to certain positions, and there

is some educational value to that.

And so as I share my views with respect to creation,

soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, perhaps we'll talk a little bit about my

eschatology, my end times view.

Perhaps folks will find that somewhat valuable as they are perhaps searching

for their own perspective on these topics.

And so hopefully that will be useful to whoever may be listening.

You might also, if you're used to listening to my show and my voice is somewhat familiar, I am

kind of sort of losing my voice.

So I'm partially questioning the wisdom of me even going live today, but

here's the thing.

I love theology.

I love apologetics.

I'm the sort of guy that on the one hand, you might see me very tired and I don't want to really get into a

conversation, but once people start talking about the Bible or apologetics or theology,

I get kind of a renewed energy.

So hopefully I won't lose my voice completely and I will

get energized through reflecting on some interesting theological topics that I've studied in my own

personal life.

And hopefully you'll find that useful.

All right.

So if I sound a little different, I do apologize.

Just real quick before we dive into some of the specifics of some of my theological perspectives, I just want to give folks a

heads up.

I am still good to go in terms of having Dr. Matthew Barrett on.

If you don't know who Dr. Matthew Barrett is, he is the author of Simply Trinity

and of course, the highly popular book, God's Word Alone.

I believe that's what it's called.

And there's a whole series there in which you have different authors defending some aspects, some pillar

of reformed theology.

And so I'm very much looking forward to having Dr. Barrett on.

Sola Scriptura is a very important reformed foundation.

And especially with my study into Eastern Orthodoxy and of course, whoever might be involved in

the study of Roman Catholicism, the issue of Sola Scriptura and one's ability to defend the truth

of that doctrine is vitally, vitally important.

So I'm very much looking forward to that discussion.

Also, Dr. Michael Heiser is hopefully still coming on.

I haven't been able to reach out to him yet.

I know he is undergoing some health issues and I'm kind of following some of the updates that he's posting on

Facebook.

I've just recently recovered from COVID.

So I haven't really been going 100 in terms of reaching out to folks and

things like that.

And so I'll check into that and keep folks posted with respect to that.

Also, if you have any questions about anything, so this is kind of like, I'm not

only serving some of my perspectives, theologically speaking, but if you have any questions for me

with respect to a position that I hold, or if you have any apologetics questions, all

of that is fair game.

Feel free to leave a question in the comments.

It is helpful and useful to me when you preface your question with the word question or the letter

Q so that I could differentiate questions and comments.

Okay.

So without further ado, let's get into this.

Well, first I want to make a disclaimer.

I am a theologian only in the popular sense.

I do not have a PhD in theology.

I grew up in the church and so theology has very much been a part of my life.

Whether I'm arguing some element of theology with family members or later on in life,

engaging in apologetics and teaching theology to middle school and high school students.

I am not a scholar by any means.

I've gone to seminary, but I don't read Koine Greek.

I can read it very little.

So everything that I'm going on is based upon really my own personal studies and

personal reflections.

This actually is something that should actually be very encouraging to folks.

For example, let's take a look at some of my apologetics.

Now, a lot of people know that's a central focus of my ministry.

My YouTube channel, of course, is called Revealed Apologetics.

This is something that's very encouraging to folks.

Okay.

I went to seminary.

I have a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

I earned two masters in theological studies.

I have a master of arts in theological studies and a master divinity with a theological focus.

Now, here's the thing.

99 of the theology that I learned actually was not from my seminary

training, but rather through my personal study.

Okay.

And the value of knowing that is that you do not need to go to seminary in order to

really dig deep into theological studies.

It definitely helps, but it can be done without it.

If you have a good focus and discipline, you're going to a solid church where good

doctrine is promoted.

These sorts of things are sufficient as well to really equip the average believer.

So I want to encourage folks, you don't need to have a PhD next to your name in order to do

theology or even do theology well.

Hopefully, I'm a person who perhaps you think I do a theology and apologetics well.

I greatly appreciate that if you think that about me.

But there have been some major ideas that I have struggled with.

Especially with regards to the doctrine of creation, with the whole old

earth, young earth debate.

And so I'm going to put my

flag somewhere on this show and tell you a little bit where I stand with respect

to the doctrine of creation.

And we're going to kind of follow kind of general theological and biblical themes.

For example, you take a look at the scriptures.

The scriptures are comprised of 66 books, 39 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, written over a

period of 1 ,500 years, written on three different continents in three different languages, Hebrew, Greek,

Aramaic.

Bible's a pretty big book.

And it can be very intimidating, especially when you have one of those giant study Bibles.

It looks like you're kind of studying and reading from an encyclopedia.

But what I have found is that the entire Bible can be summarized in just a

few major themes of which all of the stories, all of the teachings and doctrines really in the

scriptures kind of reflect these broad, basic themes that you find throughout scripture.

And those themes are creation, redemption, I'm sorry, creation, the fall,

redemption, and consummation.

And so you have from creation all the way up to consummation, which really typifies, if

you take a look in terms of just history, it really typifies what we would understand as

what we call a linear model of history.

And this is very important.

History itself, along with everything else that we believe is always interpreted

within a worldview perspective.

And so I see history, this is kind of my theology of history.

I see history as linear.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Okay.

And so my belief in creation is connected to my belief that

everything within history has a specific purpose.

History itself is unfolding God's plans, God's purposes, especially with

respect to his unfolding of his redemptive plan throughout history.

So I believe, especially coming from a reformed perspective, I believe that God decrees

whatsoever comes to pass.

And that is what gives the events of history meaning and significance.

Okay.

So beginning with some of my theological beliefs, I have a theological perspective

of history.

And so I follow what we call a linear model, which is actually very different.

I'm not sure if folks are familiar with this, but when you study history, what undergirds

history and what undergirds all of the disciplines, whether you're studying philosophy,

mathematics, science, whatever the case may be, there is always, as you should be familiar

with, if you listen to this show, there are always undergirding worldview foundations.

Okay.

There's not just history.

There is a philosophy of history.

And the philosophy of history is not just a bare philosophy, a general perspective.

It comes from a specific worldview perspective.

And so you could have a very Christian understanding of history, and you can have a very, let's say, an Eastern

perspective of history, which follows a more cyclical model of history.

So from the Christian perspective, as I perceive it, history proceeds in linear fashion, creation, and then everything

that unfolds from there is actually moving towards a specific end.

Now, that being said, this is important if you're a Christian who believes in the decrees of God,

that whatever happens in time and space is something that unfolds

God's plans and purposes.

Okay.

That is not to say, especially coming from a reform perspective, when I say that, for example, I do not

believe in luck, chance, and randomness, that is not to say that

just because there is a reason and purpose for everything that happens, that we necessarily know what

those reasons are.

Okay.

So for example, when you take a look at the philosophical problem of evil and Christians grapple with the

notion of the existence of objective evil and the existence of the sort of God that is

presented in scripture, I do believe that God has morally sufficient reasons for the

evil that he allows, but that doesn't mean I know specifically in every instance and manifestation of

evil, that I know what that specific purpose is.

There is elements of mystery within that perspective.

And of course, there is a theology of mystery, which I firmly hold to.

I do not pretend to be able to explain every single detail of why God does

what he does.

Deuteronomy 29 .29 says that the secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us and our children's

children.

And so I think theologically, and this is something I hold very strongly, there

is room for mystery, an appropriate room for mystery.

And it is not always, it can be sometimes, but it's not always

a cop -out to appeal to mystery.

So for example, if you know some of the interviews that I've done with respect to

Calvinism, theological determinism, engaging the question of

how one is to reconcile the notion that God is meticulously sovereign, yet man is

sufficiently free and morally responsible for his actions, we have theological and

philosophical explanations as to how we think those things work out.

But I do believe, regardless if there are, you know, vitriolic

insults that are hurled in the direction of Reformed theology for this, I do believe that in

some cases it is very appropriate to affirm that how these elements are reconciled

is in fact quite mysterious.

And so that when we are engaging in philosophical and theological explanation as to

how, for divine sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility, we are engaging in

speculation.

Okay?

That does not mean that it's inappropriate.

There is appropriate speculation.

But we are speculating because I'm very much in line with John Calvin, who held to the

principle that when the scripture is silent, we should be also.

Again, so I don't mind talking about, you know, having someone like Guillaume Bignon on or some other

Reformed philosopher to talk about how we explain some of these elements and how these things work together.

Ultimately, I have no problem saying I really don't know for sure

how all of these things work out.

And I have no problem with that.

As a matter of fact, a friend of mine, you guys might be familiar with him.

He is a well -known Molinist, okay?

If anyone is familiar with Molinism, which is a particular view of divine sovereignty, which places a great emphasis on

what's called middle knowledge.

I have a friend, his name is Tim Stratton.

He told me once, he said, if I wasn't a Calvinist, I'm sorry, if I wasn't a Molinist,

I would be a Mysterian Calvinist, okay?

And for Tim, or Dr. Stratton, we'll recognize his credentials there,

Dr. Stratton defines Mysterian Calvinism as the sort of Calvinism

that says, sure, God is meticulously sovereign, man is sufficiently free and morally responsible, but

it's a mystery, I'm not sure how it works out.

I'm okay with that, okay?

So I'm a Calvinist, I tend to lean towards a form of theological determinism, and I

believe it, not only because I find the philosophical argumentation cogent and sufficient

to my intellectual satisfaction, and that determinism survives many of the critiques

that are launched at it by folks who hold to a more libertarian perspective, but most importantly,

because I have a very high view of scripture, I believe that reformed theology and a

particular form of determinism is something that is reflected in the biblical text.

I know some people will hear that and they'll say, that's ridiculous.

You know, they'll say, when I read the scriptures, I don't see anything in scripture that even remotely looks like a form of

determinism.

Yeah, I don't think so.

Even if Calvinism was wrong, I would admit that there are elements of scripture that seem very

deterministic, and so the debate and the discussion is not as simple as waving your hand and pretending

that Calvinists have nothing valuable to bring to the table.

In like fashion, I do believe, as a student of scripture, that in

favor of the Arminian perspective, or someone who holds to a view of free will, which leans more

towards the libertarian perspective, while I do not hold to those perspectives, while I do not believe they are

necessarily reflected in scripture, I totally and completely understand why someone can

read portions of scripture and come away with that perspective.

And so I hold to a particular view.

I am Calvinistic in terms of my view of divine providence, but I respect

different perspectives and I see why some people hold the positions they hold.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, my theological convictions are that those non -reformed

perspectives, libertarian perspectives, are ultimately not the correct view, okay?

And that is the position that I hold.

Some of you who might not be familiar with some past episodes and the certain things that I've studied before,

I actually used to be a Molinist.

And I remember the book, that actually converted

me to Molinism into an adoption of libertarian free will and things like that.

It was a book by Kenneth Keithley, who is a professor over at Southeastern Theological

Seminary.

He wrote a book called Salvation and Sovereignty.

And that book, when I read it, convinced me of Molinism, until I started applying Molinism to

other areas, which I thought were very important, especially with soteriology and things like that.

And I became unconvinced in its application in those areas.

And for other reasons as well, I kind of went back to my reformed perspective.

And so I am a Calvinist.

I do not hold to libertarian free will.

And no, I'm not convinced by the accusation.

Well, you were determined to say that!

I think those are very simplistic responses.

And the debate on that topic, I think, goes much, much deeper.

So that's my perspective with respect to a theology of time.

I believe time proceeds in linear fashion.

It is an unfolding of God's redemptive and decretive purposes.

With respect to my view of divine providence and things like that, I lean within

a reformed and Calvinistic tradition.

There's some variation even within that, but I tend to hold to a form of theological determinism.

If you need a point of reference and say, what do you mean theological determinism?

If you read someone like Guillaume Bignon, who's a good friend of mine.

He's a French philosopher.

I tend to lean towards his position with respect to that topic.

Okay?

All right.

Well, again, just to remind folks, if you have any theological questions or biblical questions, feel free to put them in the

comments.

It does not necessarily have to be related to a view that I am sharing here.

But, you know, ask away.

All right.

Okay.

So my next topic, which people have seen me go back

and forth on, if you know, and I highly recommend, and I know folks who have seen the discussions

on this topic would highly recommend on my channel, are the discussions I had with

Dr. Jason Lyle, who is a young earth creationist and he is a PhD astrophysicist.

And I had him in dialogue with Dr. Hugh Ross, who is also a PhD astrophysicist and an

old earth creationist.

And I moderated a discussion between the two.

And in my opinion, I suppose I'm biased, right?

As I often say, there is no neutrality, right?

I'm biased.

You know, I think that that was one of the best conversations on that topic

that I've ever listened to.

And Dr. Lyle and Dr. Ross have had interactions in the past, but I actually think the discussion they had on my

show was the best discussion that I had the pleasure of listening to between them.

So I highly recommend you listen to that.

But where do I stand?

Okay.

Where would I stand with respect to this debate over the days of

creation?

Now, here's the thing you need to understand that studies in interpretation of the book of Genesis

is a very, very complicated field.

Okay.

It's not as simple as just reading Genesis 1 and 2 and saying, oh, this is clearly

what they're saying.

Okay.

There is a very important consideration of historical context, identification

of the literary genre of various portions of Genesis.

And you have people from different perspectives arguing, well, clearly it's this or clearly it's that.

Listen, I'm a presuppositionalist in my perspective.

I trust in the authority of God's word.

I understand the importance not of just looking at data and evidence in favor of a view.

I am very sensitive to the fact that our presuppositions affect how we interpret the data.

Okay.

And this, when you study the creation account in Genesis and throughout scripture, there is a strong

interplay between literary interpretation and

scientific findings, things like that.

You get into questions of Big Bang cosmology and evidence for or against and young earth

or older perspectives.

I am not ashamed.

Okay.

Of the fact that the Bible may be teaching that God created everything in six

24 hour periods and that the universe is somewhere between six

to 10 ,000 years old.

That's not the issue.

My issue is not I'm afraid to sway in one position.

My issue is that Genesis is a very nuanced book.

There is different ways one can identify theological and literary genre

playing within those accounts.

And so it is not an easy decision for me.

Okay.

Now you might read Genesis and be like, Oh, it's clear for me with some of the things I know,

with respect to what goes into studying ancient literature and genre and things like that.

It has not been an easy study and an easy situation in which I can just

put a flag down and be like, this is where, where I hope.

However, okay.

I told you at the beginning of this video, I'm going to put my flag somewhere.

Okay.

Now, now here's the thing.

I personally do not hold to say a literary

framework perspective.

I, I am not attracted to over a meta.

I isn't, if it's a real word, but let me rephrase myself.

I'm not overly attracted to positions that look at a

lot of metaphor in Genesis.

Okay.

I am attracted to a more literal interpretation of what I'm reading.

Okay.

Now literal is a sticky word.

You will often hear people say, well, you know, do you interpret the Bible

literally?

Well, yes, but it depends what you mean by literal.

Okay.

This is actually an important point to, to, to kind of point out to interpret the Bible

literally is to interpret the Bible according to its literature and identifying the

literature of portions of the Bible that you're reading is not always, pardon, is not always an

easy thing to do.

Now, all of that sidestepping and ambiguity aside.

Okay.

If you put a gun to my head and you said, Eli, you need to choose right now, do you understand the

creation account to be literally 24 hour days or long periods of time

or other perspectives out there?

I would have to say that if you, if you put a gun to my head and force me to, to, to put my flag somewhere, I

would be more sympathetic to a young earth interpretation.

Okay.

Now I say this with flexibility in the sense that if you happen to

hold, for example, to a day age perspective in terms of which the, the

creation days are not literal 24 hour days, but rather long periods of time, I'm

of the position where I can look at the text and say, okay, I see where you're coming from.

And I kind of see how that might make sense.

Okay.

So I do not see the old earth creation perspective, an example, the day age

interpretation or something like that.

I do not see those perspectives as a, um, a compromised perspective.

You will often hear this language, right?

Um, oh, well those, you know, deep time proponents are compromisers, right?

They are adopting secular perspective.

I don't hold to that.

I don't use that sort of language in describing the other position.

Um, and, uh, you might have strong convictions, uh, to the, you know, to the contrary.

I, I just think that the, the topic is more nuanced and requires a little bit more flexibility.

So ready?

I am okay.

A flexible young earth creationist who is open to

old earth interpretations.

Okay.

I, I get hit by a car.

I go through the pearly gates and I asked Jesus, which one was it?

Okay.

And suppose Jesus says, well, it was the old earth perspective.

Hugh Ross was my messenger.

And I tried to tell people if that's the case.

Cool.

All right.

I'm down.

I'm down with that.

Um, if you know, I get to heaven and Jesus says, yep, it's the young earth perspective.

Don't you know that, that God has the power to create all things in a split second.

Come on, man.

Um, I'm okay with that as well.

Okay.

Um, what I am also okay with, but I don't agree with at all.

Okay.

I am not, nor do I hold to the view that scripture allows.

This is my perspective.

I know a lot of people, um, uh, might disagree with this.

Uh, but I do not believe that a, um, a theistic

evolutionary perspective is a viable option in terms of understanding, uh, the text there.

Okay.

Uh, now suppose I get to heaven and God says up, God used devil.

We, I use devil.

Okay.

But as I read the text of scripture, I do not see a room for that in ways that perhaps

some other Christian brothers, uh, may, may see that as a viable, a viable position to hold.

Okay.

So I lean more towards a younger perspective.

I do not reprimand folks who hold to an older perspective, but I am not a theistic

evolutionist.

All right.

Okay.

So I hope that makes sense and kind of, uh, allows you to see where I, my flags kind of get rooted in the ground

there in terms of really, interestingly enough, a very highly contentious theological, um, topic.

I mean, there've been tons of books, uh, on creation, uh, and evolution and, you know, different

interpretive models.

Uh, it's actually pretty, uh, pretty interesting.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I see some people, uh, send in some questions.

Yeah.

Keep, keep them coming.

I will definitely address them.

Um, uh, and, uh, yeah, so I'm kind of going to go through some other perspectives here, uh, with,

with respect to my own personal theology, and then I'll take some questions there.

So we got a couple of good ones.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

It's tempting to just kind of stop talking now and just go to some of the questions.

Uh, yeah.

Okay.

Let me go through a couple more, uh, a couple of more of my theological positions and then we'll, we'll stay focused.

Okay.

All right.

So another, another topic that I, okay.

So I talked about my view of creation.

I talked a little bit about my, um, uh, theological position with respect to being

reformed, which is no secret for people who watch this, uh, this show, uh, to say that I'm reformed is very

ambiguous since there is a lot of variation within the reform, uh, tradition.

Uh, but so, so teary ology, I hold to all five points of, of the tulip acronym.

Uh, for example, I am not convinced at all.

Uh, when I listened to, uh, my friend Layton flowers, uh, who I think is, uh, a brother in

Christ, uh, a nice guy with, when it comes to kind of the, our personal interactions, but, um, I,

uh, am not convinced at all of his understanding.

So I'm not a provisionist.

I'm not an Arminian.

Um, I tend to be right in line with, uh, popular notions of, of what people think of in terms of what

Calvinist, uh, believe.

Okay.

So I'm a five point Calvinist.

I hold to total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and

perseverance of, uh, the saints.

Okay.

As a matter of fact, um, guess which, uh, one out of the, uh, tulip

acronym, uh, was the one that was the most difficult for me to affirm.

Okay.

When you take a little, let's define our terms here.

So, so folks who aren't familiar with, with Calvinism, uh, Calvinism as with, with the emphasis of,

uh, what we call in theology.

So Terry ology, which is the doctrine of salvation.

Okay.

Uh, if you, you know, learn these theological terms, you have, um, you have theology, which is the study of God

Christology, which is the study of Christ.

Okay.

You have a hermitology, which is the study of the doctrine of sin.

Okay.

You have, um, eschatology, which is the study of last things.

And you have.

So Terry ology, which is the study of the doctrine of salvation, ecclesiology, which is the study

of the church and things like these are theological terms.

Okay.

So when I use the term, so Terry ology, I'm, I'm in essence talking about, um, the study of the

doctrine of salvation.

What is my, so Terry ology, what is my belief about how God saves people?

Okay.

Um, and so when you talk about Calvinism, this is very important.

Um, Calvinism is not simply a, so Terry ological perspective.

Calvinism is a much more broader, uh, um, uh, theological perspective.

Okay.

Um, of which so Terry ology is a more, uh, a more focused emphasis on the question of how does God

redeem people?

Okay.

And so out of the, the, the tulip acronym, there is total depravity.

The idea that we are totally and completely covered and touched by sin and all that we are, um, given

our state of depravity, uh, no man seeks after God.

We are at enmity with God.

We are born in sin and trespasses.

So left to ourself, left to our own devices.

We will never seek after God.

Okay.

Um, that is why salvation requires unconditional election.

Uh, God chooses us from before the foundation of the world because we would not have chosen him.

And so God chooses a people, the father chooses a people to give to the son and the son redeems that

people, he makes atonement for that people.

So you have total depravity, unconditional election.

We are predestined before the foundation of the world, not based on anything that we do.

And then typically this is the most difficult pill to swallow for a lot of people.

And that is actually the doctrine of limited atonement.

Okay.

And limited atonement is very difficult for people.

Um, not only emotionally, because it is difficult to conceive of the idea that the God of

the Bible, when it speaks of sending Jesus Christ to die for the world, um, why would

God send Jesus to only die for the elect and not for everyone?

Okay.

So there's kind of an emotional, uh, um, objection to limited atonement and there's a very

strong biblical objection.

So you have people who reject limited atonement will often appeal to those texts and scripture, which, um,

emphasize a universal language.

Okay.

And John three 16.

I mean, it's not always used, but I mean, you have that universal language for God's soul of the world.

He gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life.

So you have that word, uh, world there.

So it seems like a universal scope.

Um, God is the savior, uh, of, of the world and not only the, uh, not only those who believe, but for the

world.

So you have this idea of, uh, Jesus dying for, uh, it's kind of a universal, uh, atonement.

Okay.

Now that said, while limited atonement has often been the most difficult for people,

the last, I actually think limited atonement is clear in scripture in the sense that when you

understand the nature of the atonement and substitutionary sacrifice, especially as

projected in the book of Hebrews and things like that, um, limited atonement was not a difficult concept for me

to, uh, understand when I studied limited atonement became convinced of it.

I was like, okay, yeah, I see how that works.

What was difficult for me, uh, to adopt was actually the eye in the tulip acronym, which is

irresistible grace.

Okay.

That was my own personal struggle.

Uh, but at the end I did, I, what I am able to perceive the idea that in reform theology

and reform soteriology, I am of the position that each letter in the acronym T U

L I P are logically connected such that if you believe in one, uh, the other

aspects seem to follow, uh, logically.

Okay.

Um, so that's my position with respect to salvation, uh, election, things like that.

I know there's some nuance even within those terms.

Uh, perhaps we can talk about that if you have questions, uh, with respect to those things.

Okay.

All right.

Cool.

All right.

So, um, yeah.

Okay.

So, um, that's my position with respect to soteriology.

I am a five point, a Calvinist, my creation position.

I lean more towards a young earth perspective.

Of course, my apologetics is presuppositional in, in nature.

So we, uh, uh, you know, we often talk about that in this channel.

Okay.

Um, let's, let's, let's touch the controversial stuff now as though that wasn't controversial.

What is my position on speaking in tongues?

Okay.

Um, I wasn't gonna touch on this, uh, position, but I was like, you know, I'm thinking about it.

You know what?

I've thought a lot about, uh, you know, position of the, the charismatic, uh,

you know, uh, church and the practices and things like that.

Um, for those of you who, um, are familiar with some of my beliefs and you are, are, are

privy to the fact.

And if, if you weren't now, you know, that I lean more towards a reform perspective.

I actually was raised in a Pentecostal church.

Okay.

Um, my entire, uh, childhood from age zero to my early

twenties, I was a member of an assemblies of God church.

And so my entire foundation.

Okay.

One second.

My entire foundation of learning was within the context of a Pentecostal context.

Now, gratefully, I am grateful for this, that in my, in my own, um,

life, as I grew up in church, um, I did not go to the sort of

Pentecostal church that participated in some of the more extreme

charismatic practices where things get a little wild and crazy.

Um, I did see a couple of things, especially when we used to go to, um, we had these, uh, these things called a

spring fest or winter fest.

And it's usually the, um, these, um, big retreats where a bunch of churches would come together.

There were the highlights of my childhood, by the way, I would not take any of those events back.

I formed some great friendships there.

And even in the midst of some theological things that were taught that I no longer hold.

Um, I did learn a lot and had a lot of opportunity to grow when I went to, um, you know,

these events.

But as I look back now, there are a lot of things that I believed at one point,

but no longer believe today.

And we'll talk a little bit, um, about that.

Okay.

So first, okay, let's go on to some of the, uh, what I would say is

the, uh, is the less biblical practice within the charismatic church.

And I would say less biblical because I don't see it anywhere in scripture is, uh, is the

idea of being slain in the spirit.

Now I grew up in the context where people would fall down.

Didn't happen every service.

You know, when you have that revival service, then you would have a situation where people would go up to the front.

I was, um, altar calls were a big part of my church experience.

Okay.

And I went to a Spanish Pentecostal church and that that's actually different than your generic run of the mill Pentecostal church

because within the subculture of, of Spanish Hispanic culture, uh, there's a

definitely a different flavor, uh, than when you go to say, uh, a more American

Pentecostal context.

Okay.

Uh, if you know anything about Puerto Ricans, I'm a Puerto Rican.

Okay.

Uh, Puerto Ricans, Hispanic people tend to be very, very passionate.

And so, um, passion energy, right?

The music, this was very much a part of my experience when listening to preachers and things like that.

And so, um, mixed in with very charismatic speakers, dynamic and confident peoples of preaching with

authority, which was something I appreciated.

You also had the practice of the altar call and, uh, depending on the service or depending on the event, we went

away to one of these spring fest or winter fest.

You would have this situation of people falling back.

And I remember my first winter retreat.

Um, we were in, again, I, we were part of what was called the Spanish Eastern district.

Okay.

And so when we went to these retreats, you had, uh, churches from all over a Long Island and New York,

uh, go to this event.

So there would be hundreds and hundreds of young people.

Um, and what was strongly impressed upon my mind, and I could still think of the details now is that the

first event that I went to, um, that was the event that I saw the most people fall out

that I've ever seen before.

I remember looking around and seeing people all over the floor.

It actually looked like, uh, you know, there was a riot chairs were flipped upside down.

You know, you had the music, uh, you know, the guy was, you know, who's leading worship was singing this, you know, the songs for like the same

song for like an hour.

I'm like, are we still on this song?

Uh, so I was very much a part of that culture, my position with respect to slain in the

spirit.

And this is, uh, um, this is being straightforward.

I grew up in that context.

Uh, so I, I understand how things go in that regard.

I do not see it in scripture.

Okay.

Now this is important because when I came to, I actually remember what convinced me

that slain in the spirit was not biblical.

Okay.

I remember, um, ironically, if, if, if you know, um, I actually had Hank Hanegraaff on my

show, uh, a while back to talk about Eastern orthodoxy.

And I remember before, of course, uh, Hank converted to Eastern orthodoxy, he had these little Bible

question answer books.

Okay.

And in one of the books, there was a small article, um, that, um,

uh, that treated the question of being slain in the spirit.

And it was when I first read that, that I began to doubt whether what I was seeing in the church and

what I was seeing people experience, whether that was in fact biblical.

Now, without getting into too much detail, here's the thing.

If I see something in the church and I observe, okay.

All right.

Now I grew up in a Spanish speaking church.

I do not, I don't speak fluent Spanish.

I always joke around.

I'm a terrible Puerto Rican.

Okay.

You speak to me in Spanish.

Now I will understand a lot, but I cannot speak back in Spanish.

Uh, and so there's still a big gap in terms of my, my, uh, my Spanish comprehension, but this actually

played a role in my own, um, studies because I did not understand for the most part, the sermons

growing up because they weren't Spanish.

I would spend my time in church Tuesdays, Thursdays, Sundays, we'd have two services on Sundays,

one in the morning, one in the evening.

Sometimes the services would be a two hours.

If we had a guest speaker, an evangelist would almost be three hours.

I spent my time reading my Bible at this little new, new international Bible, a new international version.

And I read the living daylights out of that from when I was little until I was an adult.

So I was observing a lot of these practices of people falling down and things like

that with knowledge of the scriptures.

Okay.

I knew my Bible.

And when I observe what was going on around me, what I noticed was I,

in all of my reading of scripture, I have never seen any of this in the scriptures.

Okay.

Now, many people will appeal to their own experience.

Oh, Eli, you're not spiritual enough.

You need to dive deeper into prayer and really experience God.

Let me tell you something to experience God, the idea, the notion of

experiencing God must be understood within a context and the context

in which we are to understand what a meaningful experience with God is must be scripture.

And for me, I take that very seriously.

Now I'm going to say this very straightforward, but I don't mean it pejoratively towards other people.

Okay.

I'm going to say this.

I do not care about your experience when the choice is scripture

versus your experience.

Oh, but I've experienced that.

Listen, you might've experienced something, but the issue is not whether you experienced it or not.

The issue is whether you are interpreting your experience, your experience correctly.

And the Bible is the lens through which we interpret our spiritual experience.

And when I read the scriptures, when I flip through the word of God, I do not see anywhere the

idea of being slain in the spirit.

Where do I see slain in the spirit?

Not in scripture, but through church history, not just only church history.

Do I see slain in the spirit?

It is absent for much of church history until you get to recent times, which is typically associated

with churches that are not grounded in sound biblical theology and are driven by emotion as opposed to

scripture.

I remember even sitting at a barbecue, talking to a sister in Christ about this very

topic.

And as I was gently pushing on, well, what does the Bible, what does the Bible, what does the Bible say?

This person had the audacity, I won't mention any names, but this person had the audacity to look me in the eye and say,

Eli, you know what your problem is?

You read the Bible too much.

And when that person said that I felt completely vindicated in my questioning of the

validity of things like being slain in the spirit, things that I've seen in terms of people making

animal sounds in worship services.

No, not in my own personal church, but I remember going to a service, I invited a friend.

It was a tent meeting.

It was a very Pentecostal church.

And I don't have any, I have great Pentecostal brothers and sisters.

I consider them my brothers in Christ.

And not all of, not even most of them would agree with some of the things that I'm saying here.

Some people would actually resonate very much with what I'm saying.

So I'm not putting all Pentecostals in that category.

Okay.

I still am friends with Pentecostals and I would go to them for guidance and questions on scripture on certain topics.

So it's, I'm not clumping everyone together.

You do need to be careful with the fallacy of the broad brush, right?

I do not want to paint with a broad brush.

The extremes of that I'm about to tell you now is not something that all Pentecostals hold to.

The people at my church that I grew up with, what I'm about to tell you would most likely not agree with this.

And so I wouldn't even clump the church that I came from in this category.

But I remember that there was a church that was having a tent meeting, kind of an old school revival sort

of thing.

And even back then when I was a teenager, I was sort of a book nerd.

And I knew that when you go to the tent meetings, they sell books in the back.

And so I bought, I remember I bought the biblical application

study Bible.

Okay.

Just to tell you, let me see.

Hold on.

Maybe I can find it.

I actually have, oh my goodness.

This is so embarrassing.

Okay.

I'm not going to embarrass myself completely.

I'm only going to embarrass myself partially.

Okay.

Just to tell you how deep I was in the Pentecostal realm and kind of even

flirting with the sort of prosperity gospel and things like that I have in my

hands right here.

Okay.

When did I get this?

Oh my goodness.

Okay.

This was from 1999.

This is a Joyce Myers Bible.

Okay.

It is old.

Okay.

I'm just going to flip this.

I'm afraid to flip this onto the camera because someone's going to put it on pause and read it.

But right here, let me see if I can put it here.

Right here.

I have a bunch of notes and goals that I wrote in my Bible as a teenager as to what I wanted to accomplish

spiritually and in my life.

It's super embarrassing.

This is a super old Bible.

But I remember I bought the biblical application study Bible.

My mom gave me this Bible.

I used to, you know, watch Joyce Myers sermons and things like that.

So I was in things deep.

Okay.

It was, you know, when I look back now, where I am now is a very different, I was of

a very different perspective back then.

But when I invited a friend, okay, to this tent meeting, all right, what I

began to see and hear people around me, not only was there people being quote

slain in the spirit, but people began to make animal noises.

There was a person who was acting like a bird flapping their arms and the, even things growing

up in a Pentecostal context.

I had never seen that before.

And I felt mortified because my friend who was not a Christian

looked at me and said, what's that?

He says, I feel this is what he said.

He said, I feel like I'm in Noah's Ark with the animals.

My unbelieving friend said, what do I say to that?

Okay.

Now let's take away the extremes.

Suppose that wasn't happening and simply something like slain in the spirit was occurring.

Suppose just that was occurring.

And if my friend says, what is that?

What biblical justification could I give my friend who is asking about that experience?

I couldn't, I couldn't give any biblical justification because it's not in scripture.

Okay.

So I am very skeptical about a lot of what goes on in

many charismatic sorts of churches.

Okay.

Now, if we move towards a more biblical concept, which would be something like speaking in

tongue, speaking in tongues is in fact biblical.

It is in the Bible.

You see it in Acts chapter two where the Holy Spirit grants the supernatural

ability of individuals to speak languages.

They do not know.

You see, this was one of the ways, this was one of the signs of the birth of the church at Pentecost, right?

I get that.

Okay.

Now, what is my position?

What is my theological belief concerning speaking in tongues?

Okay.

This specific area, I tend to be more careful and more nuanced

because the idea of speaking in tongues is found in scripture.

And I am aware of the arguments that are made by cessationists.

Okay.

Now I'm going to be using a theological term here.

Cessationism typically holds to the position that the various miraculous gifts

have, they're no longer in effect for the church today.

So something like speaking in tongues is not something that we as Christians today should expect.

The spirit is not working in that specific fashion.

Some argue that there is no need for the gift of prophecy and things like that because we have the

scriptures and things.

I'm familiar with those arguments.

Okay.

And I lean towards the validity of those arguments, but I would have to admit that

those arguments are not knocked down in the sense that when I hear the arguments and I think they make

sense and I may even lean towards holding to some of those perspectives.

I'm very careful with what I think personally, what I think those arguments actually get you

to.

And so I would identify myself with respect to speaking in tongues as a

cautious, okay.

A cautious cessationist.

Okay.

I resonate with the idea that speaking in tongues is no longer for today because the

arguments to me seem somewhat convincing, but they are not knocked down.

And so I am open to the idea that if they are for today, I'm not going to say, Oh, look, look

what's happening.

That's unbiblical.

No, here's where I draw the line.

Okay.

Here's where I draw the line.

What I've experienced in the churches growing up of speaking in tongues, even as a

kid, when I read my Bible and I read Acts chapter two, okay.

And I see speaking in tongues in scripture, and then I'm at a church service and I observe

people speaking in tongues.

Even as a young teenager, I knew that there was a difference

between what I'm reading here and what I'm observing in my context.

I'm going to say that again.

Even as a teenager, when I read of speaking in tongues here and I observed speaking in tongues

in the churches, I even knew as a teenager, this is not the same thing.

There is a unique difference in the biblical description of speaking in tongues versus

a lot of what you see in churches today.

If speaking in tongues is for today, I am convinced that I have not seen a genuine

manifestation of it because biblically speaking in tongues involved speaking an

actual language.

None of this incoherent babbling.

Okay.

By the way, the Bible says that when people speak in tongues, there should be two or three at most.

And even then there should be an interpreter.

How do you interpret babbling?

How do you interpret that?

If someone says, well, when my church, we speak in tongues and it's more of that kind of the incoherent babbling sort, but

we have an interpreter that people interpret what, well, how do we know the interpreter is correct?

Because the person is not even speaking a legitimate language.

You see, when you read scripture though, they are speaking actual languages, which is

actually one of the divine markers that what was happening here was in fact supernatural, which is a stark difference

for what you see in a lot of places in Pentecostal churches today.

And so I'm very cautious with respect to how I interpret the experience of speaking in tongues as is

manifested in many Pentecostal churches today, because my standard is the scriptures.

Okay.

And so that is my position with respect to speaking in tongues and things like that.

Now, last and certainly not least, and we'll get to your questions.

Thank you so much.

There are a couple of questions here that are interesting and hopefully we can get into some of them.

I wanted to share with you my eschatology.

Okay.

Eschatology.

Again, if you are a theological veteran, you'll know what this is.

If you are a theological newbie, eschatology is the study of last things.

It is typically the last chapter in your systematic theology book.

It often pertains, if I can use the popular language, kind of the end of the world sort of thing,

the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, the judgment.

All right.

So I grew up, okay, a Tim LaHaye sort of guy.

All right.

Growing up, the eschatological position that I was taught was that

of the pre -millennial dispensational flavor.

Okay.

And more specifically along the lines of say, the left behind series.

Okay.

So I believed that in the future we are expecting a rapture,

which I was taught was a sort of secret coming of the Lord in which believers would be

caught up in the air and be removed from the earth.

And those who are left behind would be here on earth experiencing a period of

tribulation.

You know the deal, the seven -year tribulation.

You have the antichrist, you have persecution, you have the mark of the beast, as is mentioned in the book of Revelation and

things like that.

And at the end of the, well, the middle of the seven years, you have the antichrist breaking covenant that

he's established.

And then at the end of the seven years, you have the bodily return of Christ.

And of course the millennial reign and things like that was the position that I was raised to believe.

However, okay, there was a book that when I read it, it revolutionized

my perspective.

Now I might share the title of this book with you, which I'm about to.

And you might totally disagree with the eschatological position that I'm going to put forth right now.

But, okay, whether you agree or disagree, for me, when I read

this specific book that I'm now going to mention in just a few moments, it forced me

to look at what I took for granted from a different perspective.

Okay.

I began to see what I was taught with respect to the end times.

I began to see how weak it was from my perspective, scripturally, there were

pieces of scripture that I read that did not seem to

fit the model that I was being taught.

And so I brought questions to various pastors and informed believers at the time.

And I wasn't very happy with the explanations that I was, that I was being given.

And of course I was seen as kind of that annoying guy, you know, excuse me, I have a question.

And then I wouldn't leave the person alone.

You know, I think, I think my dad used to teach Bible Institute or, or maybe he was

taking a class or whatever.

And I would go with my dad and I would kind of wait in the pastor's office until he was done.

And sometimes I catch the pastor in his office and I say, Hey, you know, pastor, I have a question.

Okay.

And it wasn't even necessarily my pastor.

There are other pastors that were associated with the biblical Institute that my dad taught some classes or

he was a student there.

And so I would, I would talk to a bunch of people and I was very dissatisfied with a lot of the answers I was given.

So what is the name of the book that changed my perspective on eschatology?

And it was actually, interestingly enough, my back door entrance into the study of apologetics.

I actually was exposed to Greg Bonson by this person's literature and things like that.

And that was the book last day's madness, the obsession of the modern church

by Gary DeMar.

Okay.

Once I read that book, my entire perspective was changed.

And most specifically relating to what I really had an issue with when I read my Bible.

And that was the time texts of scripture.

So for example, when you read the Olivet discourse, which is paralleled in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.

Okay.

You take, for example, Matthew chapter 24 and you see the description of what many believe is a description of the

great tribulation period.

And then you get to Matthew 24, 34, I believe is 34 where Jesus says, and this generation will not pass

away until all these things take place.

And when I'm reading this in last day's madness, the obsession of the modern church, I'm trying to understand, well, wait a minute.

This generation can mean this and can mean that.

But Gary DeMar was correct.

When he said that, when you do a study of the phrase, this generation, it always means and only means the

specific generation to which, who is being spoken to at that time.

Okay.

And of course, if you look at some study Bibles will hold to a more premillennial dispensational position, they'll say, well, this generation

refers to that generation of the future who experiences these signs.

That wasn't convincing to me at all.

Okay.

I was like, well, this seems to mean this.

And if it means that, then the word that should have been used in Matthew 24, 34.

So there were certain kind of blocks, theological blocks that began to tumble down and really begin

to change my perspective.

People ask me, you know, are we living in the last days?

Well, that's funny.

The phrase last days is, is found in scripture.

And so, you know, when you read, for example, Hebrews chapter one.

Okay.

Let me actually turn there real quick.

I know it by heart, but let me actually go there so that I can read it more specifically here

more accurately.

Hebrews chapter one says, reading from my Joyce Meyer study Bible.

Okay.

No judgment here.

Okay.

No judgment here.

It's not really a study Bible.

There's not even any notes in it.

I don't know.

Maybe she wrote the introductions to the, I'm not sure.

I don't know how she contributed to this, but I don't know.

At any rate, Hebrews chapter one says the following.

In many separate revelations.

Okay.

Each of which, this is a weird reading.

Maybe I shouldn't read from the Joyce Meyer Bible.

Actually, I'm going to read it.

Look what it says.

Very interesting translation here.

It says in many separate revelations, each of which set forth a portion of the truth.

And in different ways, God spoke of old to our forefathers in and by the

prophets.

Verse two.

Okay.

Which is, that's a really weird translation there, but at verse two, it says, and this is the relevant portion

here, but in the last days, in the last of these days, a better

translation would say in these last days.

He has spoken to us in the person of his son.

Okay.

So I, it's kind of annoying to read that translation.

Let me, let me get something more orthodox.

Hold up.

Time out.

Okay.

And when I say orthodox, when I say orthodox, I'm going to be reading from the translation

that the apostle Paul used, which is the NASB.

Okay.

By the way, NASB and the ESV are my two favorite Bible translations.

A little shout out real quick.

Now, interestingly enough, this is the MacArthur study Bible who, who is a reformed

pastor, who would disagree with what I'm saying?

Because if you know, John MacArthur does hold to a sort of dispensational eschatology.

So I'm going to read from Hebrews, but I won't read from John MacArthur's notes on this topic

because there is going to be an obvious disagreement there.

Okay.

All right.

Let's see.

Hebrews chapter one in the NASB.

Thank you so much for bearing with me as I make a fool out of myself.

As I frantically look for the book of Hebrews, where is the book of Hebrews?

This is embarrassing.

I'm a Christian apologist.

I, this is, I should know this.

Okay.

You got James there.

Okay.

All right.

There is Titus and Philemon.

There we go.

Hebrews.

I found Hebrews.

Congratulations.

I see some people laughing about making comments about the Joyce Meyer translation.

I think, I think this translation, this Joyce Meyer Bible is an amplified, it's

amplified translation.

So it will amplify certain words.

And so that's why you have the weird wording there.

Oh man.

I'm so glad I never got rid of this one.

This is hilarious.

And of course I have some of my personal notes from back in the day.

Okay.

So Hebrews chapter one from the truly inspired version, the

NASB.

Okay.

The New American Standard Bible.

The New American Standard Bible is my translation.

I actually had to do a little piece there for Chris Arnzen's

show, Iron Sharpens Iron.

He asked me to give a shout out to the NASB.

It is my favorite translation.

So you should pick yourself up a translation of the NASB.

Okay.

So chapter one, verse one and two of Hebrew says, God, after he spoke long ago

to the fathers and the prophets in many portions, and in many ways in these last days has spoken

to us in his son, whom he appointed heir of all things through whom also he made the world, et cetera, et cetera.

In these last days.

Okay.

So people ask me, are we living in the last days?

I take that phrase and try to understand it within a biblical context.

The book of Hebrews was written over 2000 years ago.

And the author of the book of Hebrews apparently believed the days in which he was living in was in some sense, the last days.

Question is the last days of what?

So the end of the world is the end of the age, which is more specifically relevant to Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13.

And this is where, when I read Gary DeMar's book, there was a very clear distinction between the end

of the world and the end of the age and the time period leading up to and including the destruction of the temple.

Reading that book and examining the scriptures that Gary DeMar used to support his position.

I have come to hold to what is known as the partial preterist

perspective.

So in my eschatology, my view of end times, I am a partial preterist.

Okay.

Preterist referring to the past partial referring to the idea that I do not believe everything in scripture is

fulfilled.

I am still awaiting a bodily return of Christ, a resurrection of the dead, a

transformation of the living, the twinkling of an eye as Thessalonians says.

I'm still waiting for those things, but specific references to example, for say the great tribulation, a seven year

tribulation.

I believe these are things that actually had relevance to the people back then, because you

have this time language of not only last days back then, not only this

generation back then, but you have indicators all throughout scripture.

Most interestingly enough, in the beginning of the book of revelation, where the word near and soon

occurs.

Now this was an interesting one.

I remember sitting in a pastor's office and I'm not

undermining intelligent believers who hold to a premillennial dispensational position.

There are people who can very, very strongly, I think, argue their position.

And then there's a kind of an interesting debate to be had in that respect.

But I remember reading revelation chapter one verses one through three to a pastor.

And I said, well, pastor.

Okay.

When we read the book of revelation, the book of revelation is heavily metaphoric.

Okay.

The literary genre of revelation is manifested in what we call apocalyptic literature.

And so there's a lot of symbolism.

As a matter of fact, two thirds of the book of revelation is actually referenced to old Testament concepts.

And so if you are ignorant, okay, of the old Testament, you will be ignorant of

the book of revelation.

Because the book of revelation presupposes an old Testament context through which to view many of the symbols,

many of the imagery and things like that.

That's very important.

Now, but before you get to the imagery, before you get to the symbolism, before you get to the highly

disputed, this means this, and that means that you have the introduction, which is not very

symbolic, which is not very metaphoric.

Here's what it says in revelation chapter one verses one through three, the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to

his bond servants, the things which must soon take place.

And he sent and communicated it by his angel to his bond servant, John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ,

even to all that he saw blessed as he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and heed the things

which are written in it for the time is near.

Question.

This was my question.

I remember sitting in the office.

The book of revelation was written over 2000 years ago.

Me personally, I'm convinced of the earlier dating.

If you know anything about studies in the book of revelation, there are two competing dates for when revelation was written.

And the where you stand on that date is very relevant to the specific interpretation you give to

the book.

The most popular, I think, and most widely held, I think, don't quote me on this, is the position that the book of revelation was written

around AD 95.

Okay.

I hold to the position that the book of revelation was written before the year AD 70.

Okay.

I am of the position that all the books of the new testament were completed before the year AD 70.

Okay.

And I think there's good external and internal evidence for that.

Okay.

But I remember asking, pastor, if the book of revelation was written 2000 years ago,

and we are reading the book of revelation, and a lot of it we take to be referring to things in our future.

Why does the introduction of the book of revelation speak of the things of which it's recording as events that must

occur soon for the time is near?

And of course, there are more sophisticated defenses of it.

But as I was studying, this was an unacceptable, unacceptable answer.

He looks at the passage and he says, well, for a God, a

day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

All that to indicate, well, based on God, I mean, time is different for God.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

That doesn't work for me.

Because the book of revelation was written to specific churches that were located in actual history.

And the words near and soon were very much relevant to them because they were the ones that needed to

hear the message of revelation, hear the encouragement of revelation, and hear the warnings of judgment in

revelation.

And so I did not buy that.

And so I kind of jumped on the Gary DeMar partial preterist, Kenneth Gentry

sort of perspective.

And I've been there ever since convinced that that is with some caveats.

That is probably what is going on with respect to the eschatological position.

Eli, but Eli, I have a question.

Where are you in terms of your millennial position?

Okay.

My first answer is, I don't know.

And if you put a gun to my head, I'm a post -millennialist.

Okay.

I tend to lean towards a post -millennialist

perspective.

Okay.

Things look a little crummy now, but I do believe that the gospel will eventually engulf

this context and the gospel will spread forth and have an overall positive

impact upon the world.

I am not of the more pessimistic eschatological positions.

Okay.

So that is my position with respect to eschatology.

All right.

Now I'm going to take a sip of water.

Hopefully I won't get fired from my job because I need my voice because I'm a teacher.

So hopefully when I teach tomorrow, I can speak.

But let me take a guzzle of water and we'll take a look at some of these questions that are coming in.

All right.

All right.

Oh, good.

Okay.

Now let's go and take some questions.

Again, as I made the caveat at the beginning, I am not a professional theologian in the of

being a PhD in theology or whatever, but I have studied enough theology that I kind

of know the basic landscape.

And so I will try my best to answer your questions.

Okay.

First, I'd like to give a shout out to Arthur Bear, who said, love the channel.

Eli, praise God.

You're okay from the COVID.

Yes.

And the reason why I put that up on the screen is I greatly appreciate that.

Yes.

I just recently recovered from COVID.

It was horrible.

I thought I was just going to have some light symptoms and maybe just read books all day.

That didn't happen.

So I'm glad to be better.

Thank you so much for that.

Melissa Owens also, she says, glad you're getting better, brother.

Praise God.

Thank you so much.

Here's a profound theological question from a friend of mine, Joshua Pillows.

Why are you so good looking?

I don't know.

It's probably because of the genes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

All right.

Let's see here.

I'm going to go through some of these.

Okay.

Again, so Michael Borg is asking a question that I did cover.

Eschatology.

What's your view on that?

Just if I can give the terminology.

Okay.

I grew up premillennial dispensational.

I am currently a partial preterist and I am a post -millennialist with respect to my millennial

position.

Okay.

And so that would be my eschatological position.

Of course, a couple of people asked that question.

So hopefully that is a sufficient answer.

We have a question from Kamu.

Okay.

I like that.

Kamu.

And the icon is a little cow there.

Very cool.

Very creative.

Would you say that free will exists if God knows what is going to happen in the first place?

If God has a plan put in place and already knows what is going to happen, how can we have

free will?

All right.

Well, it depends what you mean by free will.

If we take free will in a sort of generic libertarian sense, I don't believe that the

foreknowledge of God diminishes a certain understanding of free will.

So, for example, if you hold to a kind of a foreknowledge perspective, foreknowledge does not equal

causation.

So if God knows what you're going to do, that doesn't mean he causes you to do what you're doing.

Okay.

It really boils down to the issue of what you mean by free will.

And, you know, is this a libertarian free will?

Are you thinking in terms of compatibilistic free will?

Are you a theological determinist with respect to God's decrees and how the whole issue of the will

plays out?

That's really going to depend.

However, you don't want to make the simple mistake, okay, of thinking that because God knows

that therefore, up, we're not free.

Foreknowledge is not inconsistent with making a free choice.

And I would actually agree with the libertarian.

If you're going to defend libertarianism, me personally, I'm not convinced of the foreknowledge argument removing

free will.

There are ways in which you can work that out that is not as devastating as one might think.

Now, there are people who argue along those lines.

I believe, if I remember correctly, Martin Luther held to this view that foreknowledge kind of throws

free will to the ground.

But I do think there's a much more nuanced discussion to be had there with respect to that particular topic.

Here's the thing with the issue of free will, as with everything, when you're doing apologetics or whatever,

you must, you must define your terms.

Okay.

As a matter of fact, someone sent me a meme of a joke and it was a joke.

I mean, it was all said and fun, but someone says, you know, why did the Calvinist cross the road?

Okay.

And of course, you know, it's a play on the classic, the very classic and smart and

intelligent joke.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Okay.

Why did the Calvinist cross the road?

Answer, he had no choice.

Okay.

Now it's a joke.

It's funny, whatever.

But it is actually based upon a common misconception that if you're a Calvinist and you believe that God decrees whatever comes to

pass it, therefore Calvinists do not believe in free will.

That is not true.

Okay.

Calvinists do believe in free will.

What they reject is a particular kind of free will.

And people who are not studied in the theology and philosophy of this topic will tend to just take free will as a

blanket statement that kind of has a straightforward meaning.

Actually, the topic of free will is very nuanced.

You have different categories and understanding of free will.

And of course you have the thorny situation of understanding particular sorts of free will within the context

of God's meticulous sovereignty or lack thereof, perhaps you'll to a position in which God is not meticulously

sovereign in particular ways that reformed folks understand.

So defining terms is vitally important.

Okay.

I hope that makes sense.

All right, let's go down here.

Let's see here.

All right.

So Joshua Ayala.

Hey, is that a family member?

He's got the same last name.

I have so many fans on my dad's side alone.

I think we have like 12 or 13 aunts and uncles, and then I don't even know how many cousins I have.

So this person might actually be related to me.

The picture is too small for me to see.

So, okay.

So here's a question.

Does God contradict himself?

One of the 10 commandments says thou shall not kill.

And later he sends the people of Israel to kill.

That's true.

God commands the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites.

When you're talking about the conquest of the lands of Canaan, the land that God promised to

Abraham.

Again, this is based on a very important nuance of terminology.

There is a difference, believe it or not, between the notion of killing and the notion of murder.

The 10 commandments does not necessarily forbid killing.

Okay.

It might, some translations might use that terminology, but the idea behind that is murder.

Now, what is the difference between murder and killing?

Killing is the taking of life.

Murder is the unlawful taking of life.

Okay.

That is actually a very important distinction.

There are certain contexts in which it is appropriate to take life.

One being, okay, self -defense.

Another being when God is using you as his instrument of judgment upon the nation of

the people of Canaan.

Okay.

God commanded not to murder the Canaanites, but to kill them as an instrument of his

divine judgment.

Okay.

The reality is whether you agree with that or not, or you think that's cool or not, or right for God to do it is irrelevant.

If God is God, then he is the giver of life.

He can take life and he is sovereign and in control and an authority enough to take life in any

manner he sees appropriate.

People make a big apologetic deal about the destruction of the Canaanites and how this is a problem for the Bible.

No, it's not a problem for the Bible.

It's a problem for people who have a squishy, unbiblical, and inaccurate picture of who God is.

God is the most loving, compassionate being in all of existence, but God is the most dangerous

being in all of existence.

And the Old Testament specifically tells us and shows us and reflects the idea that he is a God that is not to

be trifled with.

Okay.

God gave time for repentance.

And of course, when he saw fit for executing judgment, he executes judgment by using the people of Israel.

And of course the people of Israel later on for their disobedience experiences, the judgment and wrath of God.

Okay.

So there is no contradiction.

It is not a command to not take any life.

It is a command not to commit murder.

And in a day -to -day normal experience, you are not to go and take someone's life for illegitimate reasons.

Obviously, Moses is giving the Ten Commandments, is giving it to our God.

He gives it to the people.

And of course he knows they're going into the land that was promised to Abraham and that they're going to engage in

conflict.

Joshua knew this.

Okay.

I'm not being sarcastic.

I just want you to think in terms, they weren't dumb.

We're not going to have like, oh, God says, don't kill.

And then God says, okay, don't kill.

Now I want you to go and kill.

It's not, it's, we want to give these folks a little bit of credit that there are important nuances that they would

have been able to distinguish between.

Okay.

So very, very important.

That's a great question, by the way.

All right.

So Jeff Robertson says, you believe God ordains all things which come to pass, right?

Yes, that is correct.

I believe.

Yeah, I believe that.

Okay.

He goes on to say, I think every fact is a revelation of the eternal plan of God.

I agree.

That's right.

Everything that comes to pass.

All right.

So let's remove that there.

Okay.

I'm not sure if there's a question, but I'm kind of just says at revealed apologetics.

I'm assuming it's worthy of reading here.

Okay.

So Chris, Chris Mabe says revealed apologetics.

Okay.

So not a theological question, but what area of North Carolina did you move to?

And how do you like it?

I used to live in Charlotte, but now I'm in the Hickory area.

Okay.

So I moved from Long Island, New York to North Carolina, more specifically the Clayton area.

Clayton is located about a half hour, 40 minutes from the city of Raleigh.

So that's where I am.

I'm about three hours away from Charlotte.

And that's why people followed my Facebook and Instagram.

I posted some pictures where I had the pleasure of meeting with Hank Hanegraaff, the host of the Bible Answer

Man.

I went to the studio there to talk to him about some Eastern Orthodox stuff.

And then I visited Reformed Theological Seminary where I hung out with Dr. James Anderson and talked a little bit

about some presuppositional apologetics.

I don't live near the Charlotte area, but we're about three hours away, which is kind of a nice day trip.

Okay.

So hopefully that answers your question here.

Brian Sphere, that's a cool last name, Sphere, Mr. Sphere.

Do you reject double predestination or hyper -Calvinism?

Now, I'm not sure if you are equating double predestination with hyper -Calvinism.

There is not a one -to -one correspondence between that.

If you mean double predestination, in a sense, what I would reject is the

idea of equal ultimacy.

Okay.

So I believe that if God chooses and elects a certain people, then that by extension would exclude other people.

Right.

So if there are 10 people in a room and I choose eight people to come into

another room and kind of have fellowship with me, then by extension, choosing the eight people, I'm excluding two.

Right.

Did the math correct there?

Yeah.

So yeah, in a sense, I believe in double predestination, but I reject equal ultimacy.

With respect to God's saving power, I believe that the power that God extends

to regenerate a dead sinner is not equally the same as when he passes

over what we call within the theological context, the reprobate.

So I don't think that they are a mirror image that when God saves his elect, there is a

kind of opposite extension of power that is put forth upon the reprobate that keeps them in their

sin or something like that.

I don't believe that perspective.

Okay.

Hyper -Calvinism is not exactly the same as double predestination.

Hyper -Calvinism is a much broader perspective, which runs into some incorrect

theological conclusions and affects their perception of evangelism and things like that.

So there are a lot of other different problems with hyper -Calvinism.

I wouldn't necessarily equate hyper -Calvinism with double predestination.

Okay.

All right.

Post -Tenebrous Lux asks, Hi, Eli.

Are you a theonomist?

Now, this is an odd question.

And Post -Tenebrous Lux, okay?

Okay.

After darkness, light, if those of you don't know what that means, it's kind of a nice reformed slogan.

It's a weird question, not because in and of itself, it's a weird question.

The weird question is that I'm supposed to be somewhat of an expert on Greg Bonson and presuppositional thought.

But with all of my study of Bonson, his apologetic literature, one thing that I have not delved

into in the amount of depth required for me to kind of come down strong on a

position here is I have not really delved deep into his position concerning theonomy.

Okay.

When you speak of theonomy, those folks who might not know what theonomy is referring to, it is referring to

the law of God, Theos, God, Namas.

We deal with the law.

It deals with the application of the Old Testament law within our current context.

Are we to hold Old Testament law in usage today with respect

to the political situation?

See, for example, if you hold to a theonomic perspective, there are some controversial positions regarding,

say, the death penalty for homosexuals.

So there's an application, right?

They apply Old Testament law to some of our current moral situations, and how that works out

is kind of different within that camp, but they do have specific positions with respect to how

Old Testament law applies to our modern context.

Okay.

It's actually a very important topic.

Unfortunately, I have not studied theonomy specifically enough to come down

strong on a position there.

So unfortunately, I can't answer that question with any certainty.

All right.

All right.

All right.

Moving along.

I do apologize if I skip a question.

I'm just looking for the words question.

Okay.

Arthur Bear asks the question, what are your thoughts on the use of the sinner's prayer?

I kind of resonate with folks who say that the sinner's prayer is not really the biblical model for

repentance, I suppose.

You do have people who take issue with that.

Generically speaking, if by sinner's prayer, it is a prayer that consists of someone

admitting they're a sinner, their need for a savior, and that they're putting their faith in Christ, and it is done

out of a genuine heart that is reflecting true regeneration, I do believe that God

listens to such a prayer.

And in that sense, it would be a valid prayer.

Do I encourage the sinner's prayer in the way that it's encouraged today?

And it's almost this idea that if you say the right words, you know, this means you get your stamp on your hand and you're going to go to

heaven.

No.

Okay.

The real issue with respect to repentance and things like that, and acknowledging that one's a sinner is really an issue of the heart.

Okay.

And of course, that is something that God is looking at.

Not so much the correctness of our words when we are speaking, Lord, I'm a sinner and blah, blah, blah.

It is more of the condition of the heart, right?

We can see the outward appearance.

God looks at the heart.

And I think in that regard, I don't think it's completely illegitimate, but I do see the danger with how it is

typically understood within popular discourse.

Okay.

All right.

This is an easy question.

Kuyperion Burian says, coffee or tea?

Absolutely, definitely coffee.

I tell everyone there are two things I need in life to succeed and to get along, and that is coffee and Jesus, not

in that order.

If you have coffee and Jesus, that's heresy.

But if it's Jesus and coffee, that's just good theology.

All right.

Thank you so much, Kuyperion Burian for that.

Let's see here.

Let's see.

Okay.

So George Huertas says, or he makes a comment here.

I was just told today by someone that God can make someone be slain in the spirit if he wants.

In his refutation to my stating, it was unbiblical.

Sure.

God can send a spaceship to earth with Martians from another planet if he wanted.

The fact is, what is our standard in evaluating these various practices within the

church?

Okay.

If you're going to argue using the God can do whatever he wants, you still run

into the problem of the fact that God has revealed to us what he wants.

And what does God want?

God wants us to evaluate various practices in light of his word.

Done.

You've refuted their position.

Well, God can do anything he wants.

Cool.

Well, the Bible states that he wants us to evaluate things according to his word.

We are to test all things.

And if you are engaging in a practice that's not biblical, right, then I can't test it biblically in the sense

that, well, if you're going to say God can just do whatever and it's valid, then you are, you are invalidating the very test that God

tells us to use in evaluating and discerning between truth and error.

All right.

You can't do that.

Now people say, well, George, okay.

You know what your problem is, George?

Your problem is you put God in a box, right?

You ever hear that?

Especially when you're talking to folks who hold to these various practices.

You put God in a box.

No, I don't put God in a box.

The reality is that God has put himself, his will and the way he functions and relates to us.

He put himself in a book and that book is his word.

And he commands us that we are to evaluate all things in accordance with his word.

It is God who imposes the limits with which he will function and gives us the standard

by which we are to judge the validity of supposed experience, experiences of God and

various teachings and things like that.

Okay.

So that's very important.

You can kind of turn the tables on someone who reasons along those lines and you can give him what we call in logic, a reductio ad

absurdum and actually show the absurd conclusion that would result if we were to argue along those lines.

Well, the Bible doesn't say it, but God could do it if he wanted to.

Is that now how we're going to defend doctrine, certain prophetic visions that people have or some

spiritual experiences?

Is that what we're doing now?

We're not going to go by the word of God.

We're going to say, well, God could do it this way.

I'm not concerned with what God could do.

I'm concerned with what God has done, what God has said, and how that relates to how I am to evaluate as a faithful Christian,

how I am to evaluate various truth claims that may or may not be detrimental to

the body of Christ.

Okay.

All right.

Let's see here.

Moving along,

looking for questions, moving through the comments.

NASB, the non -Arminian standard Bible.

That's awesome.

All right.

Let's see here.

Let's see here.

A lot of comments.

That's good, good, good, good.

Let's see.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

So JD Free says, how much of revelation do you think is fulfilled?

Okay, that's a very difficult question.

I did make mention in passing that I do believe in a future bodily return

of Jesus Christ.

So I don't believe that happened.

So references to some elements where people kind of think in terms of like the great

tribulation and various things with the symbols in Revelation.

I do think a lot of those things referred to events leading up to and including the destruction of

Jerusalem.

But Revelation, unlike Matthew 24, Luke 21, Matthew 24,

Mark 13, which are more historical descriptions of what they were to experience in terms of the persecution and

the things leading up to the destruction of the temple.

Revelation is a more apocalyptic and metaphoric description of a lot of what we are reading

in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13.

Okay.

So in that respect, the words that are governed by time indicators, I tend to see as

fulfilled with some caveats, which are rooted in say the second coming, the

final judgment I don't believe happened.

And so I am awaiting right now, not a secret rapture.

I associate the rapture with the second coming.

Okay.

And so I'm awaiting the bodily return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the transformation of the

living, the new heavens and the new earth, anything that is related to tribulation period and all that sort of stuff

that's associated with the traditional premillennial dispensational perspective, I believe has been

fulfilled.

Now, if you say, well, how much of Revelation do you think is fulfilled?

And you're asking me chapter and verse, I don't know where to divide that off the top of my head.

Okay.

All right.

Let's see here.

Moving along.

Good, good, good, good.

There's a question by Brian's fear.

Do you reject double predestination?

I answered partially that question.

And have you gone into pneumatology?

Um, I know I did not go into pneumatology, but I did mention some theological terms that are important to be familiar with.

Uh, we said theology, we said Christology, there's even bibliology, uh, hermitology, the study of, of, of sin.

And you also have pneumatology.

That is correct.

Uh, eschatology, ecclesiology, the study of the church pneumatology is the study of the spirit.

Um, if you want to know my position, uh, concerning the Holy spirit.

Yeah.

I believe the Holy spirit is a person.

Uh, I reject any theological position that depersonalizes the third person of the Trinity.

I actually remember, uh, inviting a Jehovah's witness into my home and, uh, we talked about the personality of the

Holy spirit.

And so I just asked a simple question.

I said, well, the Holy spirit is not a person question.

Why?

When I read scripture, he is described.

The spirit is described with, uh, personal attributes.

And of course this particular Jehovah's witness oddly said, well, it's metaphoric to which I responded metaphoric

for what it just seems to suggest that the Holy spirit is described with personal pronouns.

Right?

Um, so I believe that the Holy spirit is a person.

Uh, the Holy spirit is unfortunately in many quarters of, uh, Protestant Christianity,

evangelicalism today, very, very much, um, uh, put to the side.

We acknowledge the Holy spirit, but there's not a great emphasis.

I think a lot of it is due to the fear of overemphasis of the spirit, which we see in a lot of the prosperity churches in various

Pentecostal churches.

But I do think this is one of the things I've appreciated.

Um, um, the, the, the Eastern Orthodox position.

Now, again, I'm not Eastern Orthodox.

I think Eastern Orthodox, he has a false gospel and I've been doing some study.

We've been doing some videos concerning that topic.

However, one thing that I have valued, um, from the Eastern Orthodox tradition is the great emphasis they

place on the triune God, the concept of the Trinity.

And I think the evangelical church and Protestant churches need to capture that emphasis, uh, because we serve

a triune God.

Um, and while we give lip service to the idea, sometimes we tend to overemphasize preaching and teaching

on, uh, perhaps God, the father, and of course, God, the son, and then the Holy spirit is often cast to the side with not much, uh,

emphasis.

That's not everybody, but that has been my experience in various quarters.

So, uh, with respect to pneumatology, yep.

I hold to a, uh, uh, a very strong view of the work of the spirit in the life of the believer.

Uh, the primary work of the Holy spirit is also involved in the issue of sanctification.

Okay.

Um, and, um, I do place a high, um, perspective on the role of the spirit in the life

of the believer today.

All right.

All right.

Let's see here.

All right.

Uh, David, hello, David.

He says, do you follow a specific reading plan?

Uh, the short answer is no, I don't read a, I don't follow a specific plan in the sense that I wake up in the

morning and say, all right, I'm going to follow my read the Bible in a year plan, which by the way, I highly recommend if you

can do that.

There are some great plans available.

Um, if you go to the Bible app, uh, there's some plans that you can pick that cater to, uh, your reading patterns.

However, when I read, uh, the Bible, um, and I typically give advice for people

who are looking to read the Bible, but don't know where to start.

I typically do point people in a specific direction.

Um, for example, my popular answer, when I say, when someone says, Hey Eli, where should I start reading the Bible?

I give two, uh, two first, um, suggestions.

If you don't like to read, read the gospel of Mark.

And the only reason why I say that is the gospel of Mark is a shorter gospel and the narrative moves along very

quickly.

So if you're not a big reader and you just want to get a quick overview of the ministry of Jesus and what he's all about, jump into the gospel of Mark.

That might be a good place to kind of get your feet wet and, um, introducing yourself to kind of the overall story of the gospel.

Um, when I don't suggest the gospel of Mark, um, and you don't mind reading and getting a little deeper.

Um, I do suggest the gospel of John.

When you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, the synoptics they are called, um, uh, they are very

different than when you read Jesus in the gospel of John and the gospel of John places more so than Matthew, Mark,

Luke.

They place a greater emphasis upon the who of Jesus.

And when you become a Christian and you are just starting off in your walk with Christ, um, your concern is

going to be, well, who is Jesus?

I want to know who Jesus is, uh, intimately.

And I think the gospel of John does that in a way that, um, perhaps the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't go in,

uh, into the person of Christ from the angle that John takes it.

So for example, um, you read Matthew and Luke and you have these genealogies that connect Jesus to,

uh, historical individuals, establishing him as the son of David and, uh, you know, things like that.

Um, but then again, when you read the gospel of John, you, your mind is transported automatically, not to Jesus, his

family line, not to Jesus being the son of David, but in the beginning was the word and the

word was with God.

And the word was God, John 1 14.

And the word became flesh right there in the prologue of the gospel of John.

We are given the true nature of the son.

He is not simply a carpenter from Nazareth.

He is God in flesh.

And I think that's a beautiful place for someone to start to really kind of dive deep into who Jesus is as

the God man.

And the importance of understanding who he is with relation to our newfound salvation as we grow and grow.

After you read John, I highly recommend you jump into the book of acts so that you see the work, pneumatology, the

work of the spirit in the development and growth of the early church.

I think that's a very important place.

And then of course you could dip into some of the shorter letters of, uh, say first and second, third, John and the,

uh, the Pauline epistles and things like that.

Okay.

There is no specific place that you must start.

Um, you know, when you read a book, where do you mostly start?

Okay.

We mostly start in the beginning.

And so when someone says, Oh, where am I going to start?

Maybe I'll start with Genesis.

Um, cool.

You can start with Genesis and there's, there's great value in starting with Genesis.

Uh, but it's definitely not, uh, the book I, I typically, uh, point to for a person who is looking

to just dive into the Bible for the first time.

All right.

Excuse me.

All right.

That's awesome.

Uh, J flow says free will Layton flowers is about to enter the chat, give Layton a break.

I know a lot of people, uh, you know, they can get annoyed at some of the things that he says and stuff.

Uh, I have to admit, um, I know there are a lot of people who have different opinions about Layton flowers, but in, in my personal interactions

with him, uh, he has been nothing but respectful and reasonable.

And while we, we disagree strongly, um, I do appreciate, um, interacting with him.

Um, I consider him a friend there.

Okay.

Uh, Steven Rivard, uh, sorry if I mispronounced that.

A question.

Jesus is obviously the word of God.

Is it possible that the Holy spirit is the wisdom of, of God?

Um, I'd be very careful, uh, with, um, attributing certain attributes to certain persons.

You have to understand that when you're dealing with, um, God, uh, there is a very important doctrine of God,

which relates to the theological concept of the simplicity of God.

And so when we deal with the doctrine of the simplicity of God, it is very much wrapped up in, uh, two key concepts.

Uh, one of which is the idea that the simplicity of God refers to the idea that God is not composed of parts.

He is spirit John four 24.

Uh, but that if you get into some more traditional and classical versions of the doctrine of simplicity, uh,

there's this notion that God is equal to his attributes.

And so the attributes of the sun are shared by the attributes of the spirit are shared by the attributes of the father.

And in that sense, they are equal.

Um, so I wouldn't say, well, uh, the spirit is the wisdom of God, but Jesus is the word of God.

I would also say Jesus is the wisdom of God as well, right?

Jesus is the law gas, right?

Jesus is the, the incarnated.

Christ is the physical manifestation of the very heart and mind of God.

He is the very wisdom of God.

And in that sense, they all share those attributes, of course, with different emphasis as, uh, as they're

being revealed progressively throughout scripture.

So I'd be very careful, uh, in assigning certain labels to one person, but not to the other person

of the Trinity.

All right.

All right.

Uh, there we go.

Here's that practical, that practical question, right?

Look, I don't know if I've pronounced that correctly.

Says, does God predestine your spouse?

Uh, well, if you consider what I said before that God, uh, decrees, everything that comes to pass, I

would say that even the person you marry is a part of the decree of God.

Okay.

Uh, that being said, you need to be very careful.

Okay.

This is where you get into some dangerous territory, um, that when we live our life, we do not want to live our life.

Always thinking from the God's eye perspective.

I do not know prior to being married who my wife is going to be.

I still have to live my life, talk to people, talk to the girl that I like,

you know, take her out to dinner, go on a date.

You still have to do the scary stuff of interpersonal, uh, uh, uh, interactions.

Okay.

God decrees and predestines the ends.

And he also predestines the means by which those ends are, are met.

Okay.

And so there's an, there's a practical issue.

People say, well, God has a wife for me out there somewhere.

And so they'll use that mentality, uh, as an excuse to kind of just sit around and say, well, then that means I really don't have to do anything

because God's going to provide.

I'm just going to wait on God.

You know, biblical waiting is not necessarily sitting on your hands and just doing nothing.

Biblical waiting is typically manifested in activity.

And the activity that we do is a sign of, of trust in God's purposes and promises in our life

that we step out in faith and walk in wisdom as God fulfills his plans and purposes in our lives.

So you want to keep those things in a balance.

Yes.

God predestines the ends, but he also predestines the means.

God elects people to salvation, but the means by which they elect experience salvation is through the means and the

proclamation of the gospel.

That is very, very, very important to keep in mind.

Okay.

All right.

So, uh, Hunter asked a fun question.

We'll, we'll see if this is a fun question.

Okay.

Let's see.

What do you think of the idea that we could be the early church as in this world will persist so far into the

future, we will be viewed as quote the early church.

Uh, sure.

Yeah.

If we go on for another 20, 30 ,000 years, uh, yeah, we can be considered, uh,

uh, placed in a particular timeline in the broader scope of things as being quote early, as

long as you specify what you mean by early.

Cause even early can be a relative term you have early, but then you have the people who are right there at the beginning.

So what is the span of early?

Uh, I suppose, yes, we could be understood as quote the early church.

Uh, if there is a longer time into the future that we progress there.

Okay.

Um, this is a popular question that I keep getting asked and unfortunately I have no answer.

Um, my wish is to write a curriculum, um, uh, for young people on the topic of

presuppositional apologetics that can be used in this context and to write a book on presuppositional apologetics in general.

Um, due to my life situation, I've been able to start some things and have not been able to finish it, but this is

definitely something that needs to, to be done.

This is a gap that needs to be filled.

The best advice that I can give you, um, the best way to use presupp, uh,

within a homeschool context is to teach.

With the sensitivity towards worldview.

Okay.

When you teach your child science, math, history,

philosophy, linguistics, language, always be sure to couch those

individual topics within a particular outlook on the world that is grounded in scripture and

make various application.

You can teach your child that everything we do is connected to that biblical foundation so that

whatever they're doing, they have one foot in the specifics of the discipline that you're teaching them and

one foot in that foundation that provides the meaningful context for what they're doing.

When you're able to skillfully do that as an instructor, as a teacher, you, you allow them to see the value, not only of

the specific things they're learning in the area, but the value of that context, that

worldview, which gives richness and meaningfulness and importance to those specific things they may be

struggling with.

Maybe it's mathematics or something like that.

So I think the best way to teach presuppositionally is to teach with a sensitivity towards worldview

and our commitment to the foundation of our worldview, which is, which is God, the authority of God.

Okay.

And so there are different ways you could apply that even without, um, formal, uh, curriculum, if that makes

sense.

Okay.

Being worldview sensitive Bible as our foundation, and this teach that consistently and show how all

of our different areas of learning connect with that.

I think is a good way to kind of engage in presuppositional sort of education.

Okay.

All right.

Uh, uh, I do apologize.

Thank you so much.

Eli shows clear evidence of the fruit of the spirit.

God bless.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

Um, definitely don't show the fruit of the spirit all the time, but, uh, uh, I'll take it if someone says, Hey, for the spirit,

amen, God can use a wretch like me.

Hopefully, uh, people are being blessed by, uh, not only the content of the show, but how it's conducted.

I do try to be very mindful, um, of how I present myself.

So thank you so much for that.

I appreciate that.

All right.

Uh, George, uh, says if God knows what choices will be made and he goes on to create having made his plans, can the

person then choose otherwise than what God foreknows or does the choice get set in stone upon

God effectuating the world.

Here's the thing.

If God decrees something to occur from before the foundation of the world, that thing will occur with

certainty.

Notice what I didn't say that it will occur with necessity.

There's a difference between necessity and certainty, and you get into some sticky grounds when you speak of necessity.

But I think what God foreknows and what God decrees will happen with a certainty

and will not, not come to pass because it is impossible for that, which God decrees not to

come to pass.

Okay.

So in that sense, um, um, there is a sense in which the things that God

decree is set in stone.

Okay.

But that does not negate genuine freedom, uh, of the choices that are being made.

And that is just to say philosophically that there is a position known as compatibilism.

I believe that meticulous sovereignty, which includes God's providence and decrees from before the

foundation of the world is consistent with a sort of freedom that is sufficient for,

uh, moral responsibility.

And it is a genuine freedom, uh, that we are able to do what we desire to do things like that.

So I do believe that they are compatible with each other, but there is a sense in which what God decrees it is in a

sense set in stone, it will never fail to occur.

God cannot fail in his decretive purposes.

Okay.

Very good question.

All right.

Let's remove that there.

Do, do, do, do, do someone says, I must go to sleep.

I, I suppose I must go to sleep too.

Let's see.

Uh, uh, let's see here.

Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, uh, Joshua Ayala says, have you heard of Tim Mackey and his YouTube channel?

The Bible project?

If so, uh, how do you view their teachings?

Uh, yeah, I'm very familiar with, uh, the Bible project.

Um, there are a lot of things that, um, that the Bible project does great.

Um, I actually do encourage people to take a look at some of their videos.

Um, but of course, as with, with anything, um, you need to look at things with discernment.

There are some sketchy things, uh, some theological, uh, leanings that some of the videos

promote that, um, are very, uh, akin to say, uh, some of the stuff that say someone like N .T.

Wright might hold.

I see some N .T. Wright influence on some of the ways they explain things.

Um, and there are some positions with respect to, um, I believe maybe the Trinity, um, and some

other things that are a little sketchy for me.

So I do try to be discerning with respect to that, but overall, uh, a good resource, uh, as, um, a quick overview

of some of the books of the Bible, but also you need to also, um, have in the one hand, um, Hey, this is pretty

cool.

And on the other hand, discernment.

Okay.

So I would, I would view the Bible project, uh, in a general sense, a positive way, but with an air of

caution.

Okay.

Which is the case with, with everything.

All right.

Uh, let's see here.

Do, do, do, do, do, uh, okay.

Okay.

Do, do, do, do, do.

Okay.

Isaiah the layman says, uh, what reservations do you have?

That creation is not a six 24 hour day.

Well, I did make mention that I lean more towards that position.

Uh, so I would, I would tend to be at the position that, that they are a six 24 hour days.

I guess my reservation is just the nuance of the literary genre, um, and certain old earth creationist

biblical arguments.

Notice that, um, there are not simply the scientific arguments that older creationists appeal to, uh, to support their

position.

Uh, but there are various biblical arguments that they use that I think to a certain degree kind of makes sense and I can see where

they're coming from.

And so my reservation comes in really just being cautious and flexible, uh, in terms of the possibility and

plausibility of certain interpretations.

And in that respect, I have reservations of saying, um, uh, you know, it's a 24

hour position and if you don't hold to that, you're just a complete compromiser.

I don't hold to that position.

I think the debate is more nuanced and it is a worthy discussion to have, uh, with respect to how we interpret Genesis.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

So, uh, there are some more questions.

Unfortunately it is late for me.

We are almost a one hour and 48 minutes in.

Um, I do appreciate, uh, um, all of the questions and I do

apologize if I have not been able to get to, uh, all of them.

All right.

But hopefully, uh, the discussion that we had here and, uh, engaging some of your questions and going over some of my own

theological positions, uh, this has been a fruitful and enjoyable and even

entertainment, uh, entertaining for you.

Uh, I just want to say from the bottom of my heart, whether you are a Christian or a non -Christian, I do very much

greatly, uh, support, I'm sorry, appreciate your support, um, of, let me get this out of the way here.

Um, I appreciate your support of this channel.

Um, of course, if you guys weren't listening in, I'd be talking to myself.

So, um, it very much encourages me that there are folks, uh, even folks who disagree theologically,

um, can be in the same comments, uh, and be respectful towards one another.

I have to say one of the great prides that I have of this channel is that while, uh, many

YouTube channels that focus on apologetics and of contentious topics, uh, the comments can be

pretty nasty for the most part.

Um, the comments in, uh, on, on the videos on reveals apologetics for the most part, with some few exceptions,

um, uh, you guys have been really respectful with one another.

So I, I appreciate, I appreciate that.

Um, so, uh, yes, I am reading some comments here.

Yes, I have not gotten to all the questions.

I apologize if I didn't get to yours.

I promise it's not on purpose.

Um, I'm beginning to lose my voice and it's getting a little late.

So, uh, so I hope you guys can cut me some slack.

All right.

Well, um, if you have a question that you want me to address, uh, next time I get onto my live stream, uh, when I have

an interview or if I do another, uh, another live stream like this, uh, bring your question again and, and I'll try my best to,

uh, to get to your, to your question.

Um, all right.

So I do apologize if I, if I missed anything that you might've posted there.

All right.

Well, that's it for this episode.

Thank you so much.

Take care and God bless.

Bye -bye.