Keep sharing good news without ads.
Matt is back (we hope) for an open Q&A
We are live Apologetics live here to answer your Apologetics questions any questions that you have. Challenges, maybe even just something that you came up with when you were sharing the gospel. Someone challenged you and you did not have an answer.
We are here to help. And so if you have any questions tonight will be an open Q &A. We have no set Topics, so if you have any questions You can join us. Go to Apologetics live. Calm there is a link to join if there's anybody watching that's going.
Hey, I tried to get in I had a bad link Eli. Let me know. Hey, you can update that link so people can get in it is live now so Apologetics live is a ministry of striving for eternity. We're here to answer some questions that you may have.
My name, I'm your host Andrew Rappaport. We are hoping to be joined by My friend Matt slick from calm org. We'll see if he makes it in. I won't give it a little bit of an update some people were asking.
Why did I say maybe he's coming back? He's been out for a while and Basically, some may know that Matt. You know, oh he's telling me how he see he wants to get in so click the link. Now, all right. So we'll see if he can get in its Should be pretty good if he may have some problems, but we'll see Eli maybe you can give him a call since I know you're listening.
You can maybe just give him a call Finn to see if you can help him in case he Has some trouble getting in. Oh You're on your phone though, right? You're doing this on your phone price. So that's probably not gonna work.
All right, well, we'll see so while we wait to see if Matt can figure out the technology. The it is a little different and so depending on his browser. We'll see. Donald Jack's was saying that he will just play with show what he said.
Matt did a debate last night. He did it. Actually, he did the debate a while ago. Just so you know It just aired last night. So so Matt has been for some of you guys know he was Been off the show for a while because he'd been getting his house ready for sale and He was planning at this point to be in Arizona he Folks who know his wife is not doing well health wise and because of that he has been up.
Here we go. Let's add him in now. There we go. There's Matt. Let's see if this is if his audio is working. Yep, I hear you. I don't know if he hears me. I hear you now. Okay. Welcome back Matt. How are you.
Okay. Yeah, I knew that was coming. So something's never changed. So I'll continue giving the update on Matt. This is he's not going. All right, I Like this guy's it looks like some people are happy you're back.
Look at this Ethan Tanner. I don't see any text or anything. But if you look on the screen I put his.
Other it is. Yeah, I see it. Yeah, so.
So, uh, yeah. So for folks who don't know Matt has been his wife has not been doing well folks those who are regular listeners know this and we've been praying for for Nick and for Matt. So the plan was to be right now instead of enjoying the cold weather of Idaho.
He should be in warm weather Of Arizona, but I guess the Lord had other plans so. The house didn't sell so it's now off the market until spring when it is a time when they they sell better and Mr. Facebook user says the slick one.
I love that guy. That must mean you don't know me very well. Yeah, so let's see if I could find out who that that I have to go in. Ah, that's. Let's see if I go on Facebook that's from the Apologetics live group.
Andrew. True true Kala. I'm probably mispronouncing his name. Oh, yeah Andrew. Yeah, he's a good guy mostly. Yeah so, um, so basically the house is off the market until spring and People were saying why did you say Matt's back?
Maybe? So maybe you want to explain what happened the other night.
Yeah, that's three nights ago, I mean about that three nights ago, yeah, yeah, yeah um, a lot of you guys may or may not know my wife has some serious medical issues and She's actually out driving right now on her own.
She went and did something and she can do that kind of a thing and she often will pay for it. You know the next day and things like that. She's best to recover, but she tries to do as much as she can without just being an invalid, you know.
So she's about 20 of or it's about 80 Disabled or 70 disabled kind of a thing I guess. Anyway, three nights ago about one o 'clock in the morning. She had trouble breathing and so, you know, I'm standing there with her, you know, and she's trying to go to sleep and breathing is getting worse and worse and.
And within five minutes, she goes I can't breathe. I can't breathe and she started acting funny as in afraid funny. And so I you know, I go let's go to the ER and she yeah. Yeah, and so we got her downstairs got her in the car and I was doing 65 down to 35 and at one o 'clock in the morning and We got her to ER finally and there was a just they converged on her.
And I mean got texts and everything. They were on her really fast. I just stayed in the corner let him do what they did and she wasn't not breathing. She's having a lot of difficulty breathing and it was getting worse and they just hooked her up.
And within five minutes, which is she was substantially better. They have all that stuff. They do they know what you're doing, you know, and That was one o 'clock in the morning and got home at six o 'clock in the morning.
So and there was a memory you had said to me you told me that there was a Like wouldn't time when no one would really be on the road and there was a train right in the quickest. The quickest way to the airport or to the to the hospital and there was a train blocking the road and you do.
Go all the way around. Yeah, it's just a straight shot. We go to our our housing area and which is straight shot to the hospital literally turn left. You're in the hospital parking area and straight shot and the train was just sitting there so I just peeled a you and Booked it around a long way around and that's when I was hitting 65 close to 70.
Waiting for a cop to pull me over and I would have just said going to the ER emergency. He would have you know, let us but anyway.
That was it. My dad had. When my brother was born my dad had gotten to he basically was. He got the call. He was teaching at Rutgers University and he had. You know Rick was flying trying to get so he can get to the.
You know to get to the hospital with my mother and he got pulled over and Officer explained, you know, he explained to you also what was going on what he was doing and the officers. Okay. Well, hey follow me.
Turns on his lights and and he's just following he's going. He gets to the to the hospital. They they pull right up front. He gets to the hospital and the guy handed my dad a ticket. Yeah, he took him there but he gave him the ticket.
Idaho cops are cool. You know, they're cool. They're really good guys. Not for long. You're you're being inundated by Californians.
So yeah, it's a problem. The Californians are bad. You know, there's socialist wacko leftists morons.
You know, I Know exactly how to trigger Matt. All right, this Facebook user is actually Brian Simmons. He says hello, brother Matt and brother Andrew, so. So We didn't actually have a planned thing. We have a couple folks who are in here one who you may recognize.
He's he's. You know, let's bring in Eli here. Oh. As he drinks his cup, you know.
Whatever. He's kind of annoying and just kind of a loser. You know as is it most everybody from the East Coast, so. Wow.
Don't you feel at home? New Yorkers are seen as the cool ones man. It's the people out west or the weirdos.
Well, you go out west of California. It's true. Oh, man.
All the cool movies take place in New York.
You don't see a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and somewhere in Idaho or something like that. No, I know was not a happen in place. No, it is not.
That's why they're allowed to to carry in Idaho.
Reminds me I saw the new Arnold Schwarzenegger movie a couple nights ago really enjoyed it a couple three nights ago. You know what, I don't know what's going on but I Thought was great. I Thought was great.
It was very entertaining. What movie is this man? A dark fate.
And Yeah, another terminate like how many terminators I mean like this was the World like how many times over. It's amazing how like I was amazed with how many Rockies and Rambos they could do. But terminators are.
Another one where it's just oh, man. No, it was really entertaining. The special effects were Incredible. I mean, wow and Beginning.
This particular movie was supposed to be a direct sequel to Terminator 2 and it was on the assumption that all the other Terminators didn't exist and so I didn't like what they did in the beginning, but I agree with you it had a lot of Special effects and the action was yeah.
Yeah, the beginning was like what they could have not done that and still had the same movie. It would have been good. They could have had a little bit older or something like that. So that he's more capable.
But. You know, but but I it made sense because it's a different timeline because the future keeps getting, you know mixed up and Things so they do different things. So then I go. Okay, I can buy that but.
And he's like, well, I love Jesus, I don't watch. Okay, let's have let's have some fun. So I'm so mad one time.
Distortion is there. Huge. All right. All right, but hey, I'm glad you're on you. I'm gonna run some fire. Yeah, bad echoing bad or whatever. Okay, how's that. I don't know. How do I sound? Little bit distorted.
Don't echo. You know. And I'm pretty good on my end trying to justify why three persons are in the Trinity and Matt yesterday and I are talking about it and we went to spend a couple hours last night and I can't and the book I Don't I don't.
I don't think the book is clear enough and I'm having to constantly read of our defined terms but We went through some stuff and then what the guy was talking about an interesting idea of Unitarianism.
And I've got my notes, but I haven't polished them yet. They could talk about it. Why Unitarianism doesn't work? Can you hear me, okay, I.
Hear you fine. Okay, you say you're fine now. I'm fine. Okay, I tried changing some settings. So. So what I was trying to say is. And Eli you'll you'll be able to appreciate this. So is that Matt's house.
And as you know, I'm not, you know, really pop culture literate and I don't I'm not up on all the movies Matt is trying to. Yeah, I at least saw the first Terminator. I don't I don't think I saw any of the others.
I just knew they they were.
They're good. Okay, so.
Let's go. Let's try and see if we could recreate the scene. Matt is explaining to me the importance of the movie Aliens, which I still haven't seen. I I've seen 57 times.
Why is alien so good Matt? Because it is the standard by which all other movies should be judged for one thing there's no romance in there, which because it was a waste of time romance just a waste of time and There's definitely aliens and so aliens are automatically good and there's gunfire.
There's screaming. There's running and the plot is very simple plot. Anybody can understand it. A bunch of people go meet the aliens. They scream and run to another area fight aliens. They scream and run away to another area fight aliens.
They scream and run what other area and their numbers are dwindling as they're doing this. That's a great plot. That's great.
So Matt's message played to me. He's like no, but there's a scene where this this person's on the table I think I think a woman or Matt came remember and and he's on the table and everyone's looking and all of a sudden an Alien comes out of his stomach.
It just bursts out.
That's movie alien alien actually affected other movies and comedians and other things because it was so back in the 70s when it came out. When I first saw it, it was a talk of the town because no one had ever seen anything like that and.
It was it really had an effect. I mean you can remember I'm almost 63 here. And so back in the day when it came out everyone's like did you see this? I mean no one had conceived of an alien that had acid for blood that would live in you and.
But burst out and was super aggressive and all you could basically do was run and scream you know, and it was pretty terrifying and.
That was really great. He's alien movies. He really does. I love aliens. I love alien stuff.
Still hear an echo. It's hard to hear you guys. I don't know if you guys can hear me fine.
Maybe it's maybe just me. Yeah, I don't know if it's. We do know you. I mean you have issues with your internet there sometimes. So, I don't know if that's. You guys sound fine to me now. Yeah, put it put headphones on maybe they'll take care of it.
We got a question here Matt that came in on YouTube. By Jay Harry, he says does each part of the Trinity have a different Purposes. Do they do different things? Do they have different powers? You leave that up because.
There's a problem with the question and I'm not knocking the guy. It's just that the question is a difficult question to answer because terms need to be defined and there's certain implications of certain words.
And so let me kind of unpack it. There's each part of the Trinity. Well that violates the doctrine of the Trinity to say part. Because we don't want to say that he's part. There's a doctrine called Divine simplicity and what that teaches is that God is one substance not parts.
There is no coalescing or commingling of parts. So it the word part is in is is incorrect. It should be does each Person or each member of the other Godhead. That's how it should be worded. But you know, I'm just being technical.
Have different purposes now a purpose. What you're hinting at is what's called the economic Trinity. But a purpose it means that you either devise it yourself or it's assigned it to you. So a purpose is assigned would be difficult because it would mean one or two of the other members of the Trinity assigned a purpose for another of a third which would designate a kind of a part and partitioning within the Trinity and that's problematic.
So we don't want to we don't want to say that. What we want to say is that God exists as a single essence a single being a single nature and We call there's a doctrine called Pericoses a perichoresis, excuse me, and I wrote an article about this today perichoresis is the the.
That's the teaching that in the one nature of God. There is the Trinitarian communion and and with the members of the Trinity there's an interrelationship. Yet there's a distinction. But they share the same nature because they are the same nature and they have their existence in communion with each of the other so a way of saying it is it has to do with the fellowship and the relationship in the fellowship of The three members in which there is there's love there's harmony mutually exhaustive knowledge, etc.
And it also refutes the idea of oneness. Pentecostal theology it well It Establishes, let me just say it this way it establishes oneness in the sense not in the oneness theological system. But the oneness as in the single nature of God.
There's one essence one nature one substance and Perico perico is crap perichoresis Is an ancient doctrine dealing with the nature in its essence, so anyway. Do they do different things? Yes in the sense that in what we call the economic Trinity the father sent the son.
But the son did not send the father and the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. So there's a difference we want to say in function. In order but without saying that there's parts gonna make sure we understand that they're different powers.
No, you don't have different powers because that would be a dividing of the persons into parts and Power is part and parcel of the very nature of God and so they cannot have different powers. Otherwise we'd have parts of God.
So no they all share the same nature same omniscience same omnipotent same omnipotent on the sapiens wisdom etc. And So there you go. Hope that helps perichoresis is the issue and it kind of relates to the communicati with your mottom excuse.
That's in the Christological perichoresis. But there's another word which I forgot anyway, never mind, yeah that helps so so and.
And he's saying he said fair enough Thanks for answering and but by the way, if you if anyone wants to come in and ask questions Just go to apologetics live comm. That's where we come to answer any of the questions if you want to ask more questions.
There was another question. I saw up here Matt. Well, if James Manning just said I think Matt and Andrew would like the movie my name is nobody I I Don't know. Yeah, I've known nothing about that. Matt pride doesn't either a Movie Matt doesn't know.
Here we go. Here was a question by Baptized by Jesus question could Jesus exist in human form without Mary's 23 chromosomes?
Well, yes and no you could have another set of chromosomes for another woman. So but no in the sense that in order to be human there must be human nature an essence in there so We could say logically that there needs to be some chromosome Issue because without that then Jesus would not have been human.
So there has to be a necessity of real biological genetics. Otherwise, he's not human because we are human by that's by definition so. The answer is one one sense yes letter sense. No, that makes sense.
Yeah, that's kind of like saying Can Jesus be made of chocolate and still be a man? Well, if he's made of chocolate, he lacks a human nature. So it was though that you need those physical elements to be at least Human being in the physical sense.
Since we run, you know fullness of a human being is more than physicality. But you need that physicality to be to be human.
Okay, we have another question that was came in on YouTube and folks again. If you want to ask questions, the best way is to join us. Just come to apologize live .com. Also, you guys could share this on social media would be great so people can come in and get their questions answered.
This. I think Melissa Owens might be new here. I guess this on earlier. She said she was new the group but it's she. Her question is what would. Would the Trinity be an example of complementarianism. First of all, you define complementarianism and then go for answering.
Complementarianism is the position that.
In male-female relationships within Ecclesiastical structures male and female complement each other and so it's in contrast to Egalitarianism, thank you.
Been a while since I've had to use that word. I Was gonna be gracious and say he's been too busy, but no you had to throw the age thing in there. You know Eli your day is coming, sir. Your day. I really appreciate that Matt and I'll be on the ground when you're our age, but.
Can't believe I'm gonna be 63 in about four weeks. Jeez, anyway. Oh, I'm old man. I'm old but. At any rate so egalitarianism and complementarianism are different views of ministerial orders and relationship of male-female and so complementarianism says that male and female complement each other and egalitarianism says they're equal and that so therefore In all areas and so therefore women can be pastors and elders.
So complementarianism does not port over to the category of trinitarianism.
So he asked I guess is a follow-up would that make Mary this charted is baptized by Jesus says would that make Mary special.
Yes, we Mary would definitely be special if she's bearing the second person of the Trinity in her body and gives birth To the basically to the Creator that would make her on the yeah, we could say that's she's pretty special.
But but there's nothing I there's nothing specific about Mary that would I mean. It's what how God used her that would makes her special. It's not because we don't like this is some of the things we hear from Roman Catholics, right that they would try to say.
There's something unique about Mary the immaculate conception. Which by the way folks the Americans conception has absolutely nothing to do with the way Jesus was conceived. It had to do with the way Mary was conceived.
Even many Catholics misunderstand that the belief that Mary was born sinless that God. It's kind of an interesting thing that because when you have they they they realize they're in a problem they have they're trying to say well.
You know, how could Jesus this God himself be born of a woman? And because a sinless being how could he be born of a sinful being? So easy. Yeah, it will easy but what do they do? They say well that can't be therefore Mary had to be sinless.
But then you have the same problem with Mary. How could she be a sinless being? Born of a so they go one of this immaculate conception. Well, why wouldn't that conception be with Jesus then? Why does that be with Mary?
Just like it's a it's a faulty argument because It's not the vessel. It has to be pure for God. It's God himself who is pure and The womb, you know is separate. It's almost like they are arguing the same kind of thing the pro-abortionists do when they say it's my body.
So the woman would be her body and she has to be pure because that has to be pure In order for Jesus to be housed in her. It's just a it's a fallacious argument. But there's no nothing biblically or logically that requires that Mary be sinless in order to bear Christ.
Right, we would say that Mary is special because she's chosen. There's nothing metaphysically intrinsic within her that separated her from someone else that God could have used.
Right in and in that sense in a in a somewhat similar sense we could say every believer is special because God chose them.
If every believer is special then no one special. Well, not all our believers you said every believer.
Yeah, I think I think we're we're we're special we're special in contrast to non-believers. Not that we are intrinsically Better but we we stand in a better relation with God and I think When we say that Mary is special it's more in relation to her roles.
We're all special. God uses all of us, but the nature of those uses are different. You know, there are many there are many Body parts to the body and Mary was used for a very special role and others are used for other special roles.
Mary's job was not the same job as the Apostle Paul who? Proclaimed the gospel to the Gentiles and that was a specific his specific calling.
And just so you know, my wife says I'm special.
Yeah. That was in our day and age when we were out of size lowercase that was Jerry's kids for those who remember the marathon telethons, so Andrew Andrew and on Facebook says spot-on Eli. Um Jason picked up what I was saying here.
Jason Manning is saying what about when we talk about Mary is what? What about Mary's mother and her mother and her mother and her mother? That's the problem that they have when they right into that argument of well sinless.
She had to be sinless to give birth to a sinless being. I Remember once I was actually in a Catholic Church some Catholic evangelists. They had some teenagers I came to my house knocking on the door and we're trying to convert people to Catholicism and they invited me to the church.
So I went over and I had like 40 kids. They were just peppering me with questions. They they asked the question, you know, don't you understand? Mary has to be special to give birth to a sinless being.
She had to be sinless and I just went what about her mother and one kid goes. That's a good question. I always wondered that so that so one kid's like go ask the priest. There were three priests just watching me.
So they go over they ask. Kid comes back. I said what the priest say he goes they said they don't know and and just as he's saying that I'm looking At the priest and they left. I'm like, okay now these like they were watching me and now they're like we're getting out of here.
Okay, I got 40 kids. I could just share the gospel to. Wow good for you. It was a special time. Just like Matt special I'm special. So let's see. So Jason has said I keep hearing the Christianity doesn't have a problem of one of One of the many one of them and the many when listening to Christian debate atheists.
What is the problem with one of the many?
So the one of the many issue deals with the nature of the. The one for example would be the transcendental essence definition whatever you want to call of number and an instance of number would be two or four or six or eight.
And so the one is that thing which unifies or categorizes or makes plain or aware the particulars. So one thing and the many are Interrelated and that can only really exist in a Trinitarian context in the Christian God concept Context because only then can the one and the many be realized and actualized.
If you think of the one as a transcendental necessity for example of tables. The idea of a table there's the one essence one transcendental nature of what a table is and many particulars of that and so.
In an atheist worldview, for example, you can't justify universal principles or transcendentals in order to account for ground the idea of particulars. So that's the major major kind of a thing that's going on there.
That makes sense.
Yeah, I think the one in the many couples with the problem of what is the fundamental essence of reality this is a problem that the pre Socratic philosophers had to deal with and Philosophers afterwards some people try to posit that the fundamental element of reality is one sort of thing.
So they helped a monist be known as monism. All is water all is fire all is air. The problem is that if reality is fundamentally one and how do you make sense out of particulars in our experience? And so if you are a monist and The fundamental aspect of reality is one then you have to posit that the particular different things we experience in human experience Are illusory.
That's that's the issue with say something like Hinduism that holds to a pantheistic perspective in which all is one and the differences and distinctions that we see our illusion. And so you have other views that are more atomistic if you take a look at something like a metaphysical naturalism if if the fundamental aspect of reality is physical then you have these individual disconnected pieces of Fundamental reality in which there is no universal Non material Unifier to bring into relation all of the individual particular things.
For example if I have One barn in a farm, right? You see gonna feel you have a barn and you have another barn and another barn. You need a universal concept of barn to talk about in a coherent fashion the reality of individual barns.
So you need to have this this Transcendent unifier that can make sense out of specific things. Now the problem with atheism is that atheism as an atomistic view because all its Materials matter in motion.
They can't they can't account for universe soul. And in which case that throws logic out the window and without logic you have a self-imputing worldview. Now if you have a purely monistic perspective you get rid of particular and you have to posit something that differences in reality are Illusory.
And so the cool thing about Christianity is that the fundamental essence of reality on the Christian conception is the ontological Trinity since God is both one and many Bliss of God is equally ultimate to the manyness of God because of his very nature.
He's a cheese triune reality reflects the ontological essence of God. Because just as God is both one and many Reality that he creates is both one and many. And because reality is that way we can bring together Unifiers like logic and make a coheat make coherent sense of particulars like the specific objects We experience in in reality if that makes sense.
I know it's very hard to talk about without getting too abstract and philosophical. Yeah.
Another way to look at it is Is is the universe one thing and it has parts or manifestation of the one thing? If that's the case how you justify that as being true and there's philosophical logical problems and only Christianity provides that answer.
We can have the one thing who is God and particulars of the manifestation of the doctrine of the Trinity things like that. But anyway, he's the necessary precondition for all those things that we experience in particular fashion in particulars.
So. Yeah, the only religion that makes sense because it's it. Yeah, you know, I. You know, this is back to the other thing. KT Says this what gives us value is not intrinsic in us. It is because we are The the father's love gift the son.
That's a quote from John MacArthur. So Matt earlier someone said this baptized by Jesus said Matt that's heresy. Bring your wife here and let us talk. And so here's someone. Someone asked the question.
What part Ethan said what part is heresy? And so he said baptized by Jesus. Matt said his wife says he's special. So, I guess he's that your wife actually says.
She does. I am trying to get her on the radio to she actually broached the idea in passing but. Yeah, right because she's suffering so much and I want her to get on the radio to talk about her suffering and her faith.
In God in relationship to her suffering that actually would be good. Yes, it would be yeah. No, she's suffering pride and it's a.
Yeah, yeah, she's suffering someone else's yeah, not very often. She's not in pain. It's not very often. She's not in pain is when she's in a certain position in a recliner but anyway, that's there we go, so.
Anybody got other comments or whatever? Well, we got this isn't. I'm gonna go look at this. I think is Andrew again. He said You explain that very well Eli. You to Matt eat. Ethan has a another quote from John MacArthur.
Matt we're gonna have to explain.
You know, that's not gonna get this quote. Yes. I will. Beth Moore. She should go home. He's correct.
Now the thing okay, so John MacArthur said, you know for folks who don't know the context of a maze I was actually there. Okay. Wow. So when everyone's sitting there and trying to say MacArthur was making some comment about Her going home and being in the kitchen and this is just you know.
He's just anti women and all the nonsense that I'm hearing. First off. Let's put it in context. This is at a conference where earlier that day Justin Peters did an excellent job going through and playing Beth Moore herself false prophecies false teaching.
Saying you're preaching at a pulpits on a Sunday at church and then saying she believes in complementarianism so you had all this and the question that was asked was Todd Friel was saying I want one-word answers or short answers to To whatever I asked so it was basically just really quick thinking.
What do you what are you gonna say about this person this thing? Whatever it is. And so he gave to MacArthur and said Beth Moore and he just thought go home. But in the context he then explains what he means and it's it's about her teaching.
It's and that's what they want to avoid they want to avoid the fact that Beth Moore is a false teacher and a false prophet she made prophecies that aren't true and Therefore she shouldn't be teaching period.
But because she has loyal followers. They support her and so they all tried to make it to mean to try to say that MacArthur was saying that she should be Home in the kitchen and nonsense like that making sandwiches or whatever and we're all being home in the kitchen making sandwiches.
Yeah, well Jason Manning puts it Jason Manning's you'll love this one Matt. Jason Manning says I'm waiting for Some carm that says reformed women make better sandwiches. That's a good way. I like that.
You know, Matt, I'll probably have that shirt soon. Oh That's great. Um. So, let's see, so Jay here. He has another question and folks the best way to ask questions is actually come in and ask them. But he says here and he's got a big question.
So it covers Eli's face altogether. Suddenly the show looks better. He said I was a tuple believing sorry. So he was a Calvinist for years for many years. What I thought was genuine relationship with Jesus.
I am now agnostic and don't believe that Jesus was he said he was am I still saved? Well, first off J Harry, please come on in here for a discussion on that. But go ahead Matt an answer.
First John 2 19. They went out from us because they never were of us that they had been of us that would have remained. So if you don't know if God exists and you're denying the true and living God and I can't call you Christian and if you're not a Christian now, you never were a Christian.
You're a false convert.
Jesus says unless you believe that I am you'll die in your sins. If you don't believe who Jesus if he was who he said he was then by definition just by that just his own description. He's defined himself out of the Christian faith anyway.
And and so I and I'm gonna say this and I don't want you to take this the wrong way. It's gonna sound kind of harsh, but it's When we have people that say that I once was a Christian and Matt already quoted what God says on the subject from first John.
If you went out from among us and meant you were never of us, okay, so what were you. You weren't a Calvinist. You weren't a tulip believing Calvinist Christian at all. And I don't mean this to come off sounding hard but it is you were a hypocrite that stopped pretending.
You were pretending to be a Christian before and You weren't a Christian and now you stop pretending. All right. He says his responses, but I was a believer. I didn't believe that Jesus Was who he said he was.
The difference I think there and I'll let Matt answer after. It's not that you believe that Jesus was Who he said he was. Jesus was not your ultimate authority. God and his word were not your ultimate authority.
And Therefore because if he was then you'd still be believing the fact that you don't believe means he wasn't your ultimate authority.
Yeah, and since God grants that we believe flip is 129 He works faith in us. John 6 20 29 causes us to be born again first Peter 1 3 were born again Not of our own will John 1 13. Therefore if you're really born again It was God if you're really believing was work of God and since you no longer believe that it was not God's work In you by which you had believed it was your own was something else so you know.
Biblically speaking if you say you're a Calvinist you should know this and Therefore the problem is that you were never saved to begin with.
Muted there. So, okay. So he's saying his response and this is why it would be much better if you came in here Jay here just if you go to apologetics live Dot-com the link is there. But he says this is no true Scotsman fallacy at its finest.
Hold on. Let me jump on that. Yeah, I quoted the references. I quoted the scripture. This is the Christian worldview thing. You're asking about it's Christianity. You're asking about God grants that we believe Philippians 129.
You cannot come to me. Jesus says unless it's been granted to you from the Father John 6 65 it says in first Peter 1 3 we are caused to be born again as Many as had been appointed to eternal life believed acts 1348.
He grants repentance. 2nd Timothy 225. I'm quoting you the references and you can go check them out and you can go see this what the scriptures teach. So if someone is truly born again, they're born again because of the will of God not because of the will of man John 1 13.
So there's no fallacy here. It's simply what the scriptures teach and if the fact if if you were really a believer. Then what you're saying then according to the scriptures is that God gave you that act of believing and then he took it back.
Now it's also says in John 6 37 through 40 Jesus says all that the Father gives me will come to me and all that come to me I was certainly will not cast out for this is the will of the Father who sent me that all who believe in the Son Will have an everlasting life and I will raise him up on the last day.
So what he's saying here is he will keep he cannot fail to do the will of the Father and that a certain group called The y 'all was given to the Son and that they will come to him and they will believe in him.
And he cannot lose any but if you are outside and you say you were in but then you're outside. That means you're lost but Jesus can't lose any inside the Christian worldview. It's impossible for you to have been lost if you truly were saved and since you were you're outside the camp of Christ.
Just as Eli said in John 8 24 unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins. So you deny who Christ is? You don't even know who God really is. So you deny his truth and who he exists and you go to Exodus 21 through 4.
So therefore it's not possible from the Christian worldview that you were truly born again. That God actually gave you the faith that God actually granted you that repentance. And then he actually called you and came to Christ because that's only possible if the foundations of the world you've been called Elected for that Ephesians 1 4 and 5 and a point of eternal life to have by God's great grace Acts 13 48 for the fact that you're outside of that.
Simply says you never were born again to begin with you can don't put a second Corinthians 10 7 which talks about true repentance and false repentance and false repentance leads a damnation leaves a judgment and.
So you have a false repentance the fact is you did not trust in Jesus. You were trusting in something else other than Christ. And the reason you did not trust in Christ is because God did not grant that you trusted in Christ.
You did not believe in a true living God because God did not grant yet. You believe in the true living God. Otherwise, you'd still be in because God does not give back. What he get grants to you in that belief thing because he would give you to the father for redemption and Christ can't lose you.
So therefore it's not possible Biblically from the Christian perspective that you are at born again. You were a false convert. This is not pointing a finger and yelling at you. It's just saying you're a false convert.
Do you want the real gospel? Do you want to know what the real truth is? What you've done is you've run from that gospel. You have submitted the Word of God to your reasoning to your feelings to your ideology.
And this is why you're lost and this is why you're outside the camp of Christ. God has let you have what you desired. There's a false convert situation here from the very beginning and that's what the issue was.
And I think one of the things for Jerry to realize is I know you think you once believed but and To argue it though. It's a no true Scotsman fallacy. People throw that out with even without it really understanding what that is.
No, true Scotsman fallacy is when you try to say when there is no objective standard to something. There is a way to know who a true Scotsman is if they were born in Scotland if they have member Citizenship in Scotland, right?
But the argument is is that well the way they worded is it may be a Scotsman? But they're no true Scotsman. So in other words, we set up a way of defining what a true Scotsman is well, there is a definition of what a true Christian is and it's provided in the scriptures and Therefore that's why Matt gives you the scriptures because that defines what it is.
So there is a true definition for that. So it doesn't fit the no true Scotsman fallacy because it's not an arbitrary standard. It's an it's a Objective standard that you can examine. So that's one of the things with the no true Scotsman fallacy is it has to be an objective Versus subjective standard Matt Eli and I gave you an objective standard.
We're giving you God's Word. That's the difference so it's it doesn't fit the the new true Scotsman fallacy and Yes, as I think with what Matt was saying if you were a Christian Then God changed your heart.
This is what scripture says. So therefore your ultimate authority is God in his Word. For you to be convinced. Otherwise Would would mean That you never had God and his Word is your ultimate authority.
You had yourself as your authority and the the hardest thing for people is to say why I know what I used to believe. But if what you used to believe you thought you were a Calvinist. But the scripture says you weren't not only were you not a Christian.
You weren't a Calvinist either. So what scripture would say is you weren't a Christian. So what you think of Christianity? You either had a head knowledge and that was it or you had a misinterpretation of Christianity and you were believing a falsehood.
But either way what you believed was not in Christ. All right, so I'm gonna bring Andrew and he had a question for us.
From down under. Yeah, hey Matt. Hey I was gonna say How do we know that people are putting up an act.
That's easy. It's easy. You buy a ticket you go sit in a chair and you watch a play and they're putting on an act. Yeah, okay. That's one way. So, but how do you mean. You mean the contact Christianity and true convert.
I.
Guess how would you be spot if somebody was putting an app up an act and would you have the Right to be able to say that person was putting up an act.
Yes, if you know for a fact or within reasonableness that they are lying. So, you know. Let's say you meet an individual who says he goes it let's say he goes to church and you meet him in church and you've Made them there three four five six weeks in a row and you guys are hitting it off and you go out to To lunch, you know after church one day and he kind of leans over.
He trusts you he goes look and I gotta tell you about the adultery I'm in and I got stock in a porn place and it is awesome man, and I'm making a lot of money. In fact, I'm putting some money behind a porn thing.
What do you think you go? What that's he's putting on now. He is the thing about putting an act on means that they are purposely being deceptive in that sense. But we could have someone who doesn't know that they're being Wrong.
He may know that such a situation. It's conceivable that such an individual could believe that they're right that things are going. Okay, and it's all right to do that. You say no no, no now that's not an act.
But you could also have someone who is pretending because I've heard of guys. They put on the Christian act in order to get girls at church. They put on now that's put on an act. So, how do you find out?
Well, you hang around with them. You start looking you start listening. He starts comparing the profession with the action and that's how you determine other that or you buy a ticket and see, you know.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
You know, you know one of the things that we end up seeing he in. You know staying in the context here I gotta find where he posted that. But this is so typical that we see from people. He says These are assertions.
I'm I'm telling you what I believed. You are just calling me a liar. No. No, God's calling you a liar. Not us. He's self-deceived.
Now there's a difference between believing something to be true and lying because you can believe something to be true. That's not true and That's self-deception. Like Mormons, for example believe that their belief in God is the correct belief and but they're believing a lie, but they're not liars.
So they are self-deceived. And so I'm just telling you from the Christian worldview. You thought you were a true believer. I Believe that I believe you think you were true believer, but according to the Scriptures you never were.
That's it. That's the Christian perspective. You don't like it. But that's that's the perspective from Scripture, which is why I quoted those verses and made the case so if you say well You don't accept that then you're not accepting the Christian perspective and since we're talking about the Christian perspective you either deny what the Christian perspective is or you Affirm it and realize that you never were a true convert to begin with but if you want to say no.
So I was a true convert I don't care what the Scriptures say that's evidence of not being a true convert in the first place. Because you aren't believing and submitting to the Word of God in the first place.
Yeah. And you know, I do. I do hope that he you know it's a lot easier to have these discussions when if you can come in and you know, just the way it's it's hard to. You know. Respond. We get short of questions and then so if anyone wants to come in apologetics live .com.
So Andrew you had a couple more questions there.
Yeah from stemming from that. So then the Scripture tells us directly that we will treat them as non-believer.
Right, what does it mean to treat them as a non-believer? How do you treat non-believers? Yeah, that's what I mean. Give them the gospel. Okay, and so this guy who's an agnostic now both Eli and I and Andrew are quite capable of politely Dismantling the arguments that he would have against Christianity.
We can do that. I can. I can do that very easily. And who's typing. And I've heard typing sounds. I think someone's typing like Eli. Maybe Eli's typing. And so yes, we released on typing.
And he's just ignoring us. Yes, right. Because he's typing away not listening. He's so concentrated on his title hard to hear.
I can barely hear you guys for the past two minutes. It just sounds choppy. I'm gonna try to sign. I'm so sorry. I'm gonna try to sign out getting through my iPad and if that doesn't work, I might have to bail.
Okay. Jump in one time. I do apologize guys. Well, I do want to talk about Unitarianism. My internet's terrible. Let's see if it works on my iPad.
Now you're gonna go Andrew it's bad. Just went bad. You're very bad. He said he was going anyway. Yeah. Okay, well I can't understand what Andrew's saying. Probably a good thing I.
Was just saying that you know, I was leaving. I'm coming back. Not going back. No, I'm coming back oh.
Okay, is that better a little bit but still bad. So Andrew you had more questions that's better.
That was the other one. But then I was gonna ask do we prophesy in the modern-day church. Still like would we be able to say we prophesied? Just to say as the prophets would have.
Not there's no more prophets. But the gift of prophecy was spoken about in 1st Corinthians 12 and 14 and the Bible says not to lack any charisma. While you're waiting for the return of Christ, so I would say yes.
I'm sorry. Down because Eli doesn't hold his phone. No, no, it looks better when you're upside down. Really it's okay.
There we go, that's that's better if you believe in the continuation of the charismatic gifts, yes, if you don't then no. Yeah. So you. And since John Knox practiced it.
Yeah. Not everything he did was good, but let me ask you this and since I prophesied I've done it. Yeah, I bet.
I did nobody can. I've told people before what happened very detailed and it came to pass. It's a really easy story. But I was taking taking someone home from a Bible study, all right and So You know, we're just taking her home because you need a ride home and she needed something we oh, I got a book at my house, you know, my apartment to let's go over and Name was Tony and so I could still see her.
She was short. I could still see her Standing there and she said she's going to go to Australia in two weeks in order to do mission work. And I said you're not gonna go just. I was like all of a sudden seriously.
I was just like oh really it was like You're not gonna go you're not gonna do your mission. What's gonna happen is you're gonna stay and In five months, you're gonna meet a guy. He's gonna become your spiritual let leader your spiritual mentor and in 18 months you and here gonna have a special bond together.
You can do mission work together. Then there's Robin. What was that? Alright two weeks later. She got on a plane. She went to Australia. She got off at the plane. Realized she wasn't supposed to be there got back on the plane and came right home.
She did not do her mission. In five months, she met a guy and he became her spiritual mentor at 18 months they'd gotten married and they went to England together to did a mission and I can tell you where I was sitting and everything and placed the whole bit when she came to me and said Everything you prophesied came to pass.
Experiences so so let me ask you this man I do I do want to ask you kind of sort of along the lines with this because this is a question I got asked and I'd be actually curious of your perspective. So this is this question was coming from a Reformed charismatic someone, you know, like yourself that is reformed.
So they're not the the the wackadoo Charismatics that Word of Faith type folks right a reformed guy who believes in the charismatic gifts. Now he now this is the thing that I'm not I want to actually sit down and talk to him because in greater length because he actually does hold that the passage in first Corinthians 13 is referring to the canon and so Here's the difference though.
He's saying that he believes in the gifts because There's apostles Today now, here's how he's saying this. He's he's and I I think I know where the problems are, but I'm curious to see if what your thoughts are.
He's saying there's Apostles today because Apostles would Basically do what pastors are doing. So he was he's was saying that there's Capital a Apostles and lowercase a Apostles, but there's Apostles today who actually preach.
Seven kinds of Apostles in the Bible. A Lot of people don't know that Apostles who are among the twelve. Paul was an apostle because he wasn't among the twelve and he was commissioned specifically and differently than the others.
Barnabas was an apostle performed. No miracles wrote no scripture. Jesus is called an apostle in Hebrews 3 1 their apostles in the sense of simply being sent because the Greek word apostella means sent.
Could be possible that anyone was involved with Christ's ministry before his death and saw him after his resurrection could be referred to as an apostle Acts 1 21 to 22. And There are false apostles 2nd Corinthians 11 13.
So there's seven kinds that I found in Scripture by looking through them. So it depends on what you mean by apostle. Is he defining apostle? Biblically in 1st Corinthians 9 1 Paul defends his Apostleship by saying have I not seen the risen Lord?
Well, if you've seen the risen Lord, what he's saying is that he is an apostle in that sense. Well, is that the kind of apostle that the guy's talking about? He's gonna prophesy. Well, the issue of prophecy seems to be among the pop the Apostles who knew Christ specifically so if we were to say that someone who had seen the risen Lord was an qualified an apostle then what do we do if Jesus appears to somebody and Appears to them today and I met somebody in Jerusalem who said that happened to him and I believe him.
Because he was a Jew got converted on the spot to Christianity when he said Jesus himself Appeared to him as a young man. And when he looked into Jesus eyes, he said he knew he was God. Just like that.
I can't deny that that's legitimate, okay. Unless it's just something he's saying but he convinced me. You know, but any rate so we have different issues of what an apostle is and how we're gonna define apostolic stuff.
So I don't believe that 1st Corinthians 13 8 to 12 is About the canon. I don't think it makes any sense.
Yeah, but you know like this but but I know I think I Thought you'd come to see so you and I are on the same page. I actually think it's a category error because he's using apostles meaning sent ones people who are preaching and Right.
Yeah, that is used that way but then to say well the gifts continue as long as the Apostles continue. But those are different Apostles, so I don't I I think there's that he's he's. It's either a category error or a fallacy of equivocation because he's using the word Apostle two different ways.
Right, you're gonna be careful. You always define your terms and all of apologetics if you want to know the most powerful thing. And all of apologetics number one define your terms.
Yeah, I think you you were dealing with that on your radio show. Matt's like live just this week. You had someone and and you're just like it was. You're just like you have to define the terms first.
Define your term. It's a finer term. Define your terms.
Then you can talk about transcendentals. You can talk about everything you wanted to talk about. I forget what now you said earlier. Unitarianism. Yeah. All right.
So like I said reading through this book and if I like to close it, let me open it. And. Necessity of God's existence. Just my mankind not that one one in many issue. Nope. Uh, hey, what are you doing?
I'll pet you. God's offensive. God's for the cheering nature. Which cat is that? This is Luther.
Because Andrew thought it was Kittler and it isn't no Kittler is.
I can go get Kittler and show you Kittler to you guys if you.
Kittler looks like Hitler. Explain. Why are you. We call your cat Hitler?
He's a little mustache and a hair part and when he walks he goes meow meow meow so.
All right, check this out. Are you reading through the the Trinity and the vindication of Christian paradox, yes, okay.
And I find his chapter 9 to be extremely confusing and I'm not convinced on his arguments at all. In the Trinitarian sense yet. I'm not saying he's wrong I'm just saying it's not making sense and as Matt yester he said he had to go through it like eight times and then he went through it with somebody else and I'm going okay.
Which is fine, you know, we sometimes some of these concepts are very difficult. So I'm trying to figure things out. But I came up what in in this I was taking some notes and it occurred to me about something.
So here's this and this is still very rough. All right, so Let's assume a Unitarian God one person if that's the case and the one person exists eternally. But if that's the case there could be no eternal fellowship.
Because there's no fellowship with anybody or anything else. It's just him. But that would mean that his existence cannot include by nature Fellowship with me so far.
So his existence cannot by say that part again his existence cannot include The issue of relationship. His you mean like in his essence within his nature. There is no there is no relationship within his nature.
Relationship would be contingent upon him creating someone to stand in relation right now. Someone might call that an emergent property. But they would say an accidental an accidental properties. Do you have necessary properties and accidentals right.
Which are only true in virtue of some other, you know, some right engine.
Right, and so we'd have an accidental quality here on the contingent issue of creating something else by which then we have a relationship between one and two things. All right. So that would then mean.
Now here's the or here's the question. If he were to create something We have now an accidental property. So if we create something and that actual property is now relationship. The question then is is That a change.
Well, I don't know the right way to ask this. Does this then imply that there's an insufficiency in the Unitarian concept of God? Because there is no quality of fellowship within his nature that in order to obtain that fellowship or relationship It has to exist outside of his own nature.
Can you you skipped out a little bit. You're. The sound quality by the way is much better. I could hear almost everything but that. Can you just ask the question in a very succinct? Very succinct way.
Right. This is hard to articulate. I know it's hard to get the wording just right because I'll say it. You'll ask me to repeat it and I'll say it three different ways, you know. Because and I'm trying to get this down, right because I think there's something here.
Okay, so The fellowship would then be a new quality within the being. Now we call it an accidental right? All right. Yeah. But it was not an eternal quality or a part of God of this Unitarian beings essence, right?
So once we have Fellowship the question then becomes the Unitarian being creates some some Sentient being and now has fellowship at that moment. What I'm asking or thinking about is the issue of Some some Ascension being.
Someone said something. No, that was you. Yeah, it didn't sound like me though I heard myself it doesn't sound like me at all. It was distorted I was weird. So then if it's a nuke if we say it's a new quality, then would that imply that he was incomplete?
I'm saying It almost it almost. And I'm trying to because this is first I'm really hearing this so but it sounds like it's I'm saying it. Yeah, it sounds like You're trying to say it somehow God is gaining an attribute almost a fellowship.
Well, I'm not sure because I was that wonder.
I'm thinking because there's oh I can think of some counters to this, but I'm working with this one thing. If it's a new quality or is it a new quality if something that's accidental. Which we would call or implies an emergent quality.
That's that it only is exists in relationship to something else. Then is a Unitarian being incomplete.
I don't think I don't think it'd be incomplete. Because it's not that he he doesn't need that relation, right. It just means that if he purposed to have that relation He would have to then create another another sentient being in which he could stand in relation.
I actually thought you were gonna go go the route that if God was Unitarian and that the Relationship the characteristic of relationship is not essential to him that He is Contingent upon something else existing in order to have that relation relationship.
Once he creates that relationship, is there some sort of intrinsic change within the nature of God?
That's where I thought you were going. Well, I was gonna hint towards that in a little bit in my notes because is there a An alteration in his essence because the essence emanate or properties emanate out of the essence.
So this issue the properties of fellowship would affect the would be affected by the nature of the essence if properties exist. At no longer is this before in the issue of fellowship? This is where I'm getting into the issue of okay.
Is that related to his essence and his property or an emergent quality?
One attribute of God we have to take into play here is the Unitarian God not the Trinitarian one. Yeah is immutability. Right. So this is being was immutable, right? Because if God's immutable then know that.
I mean, that's where I'm Listening to saying this is the problem. It's rubbing up against his immutability. Right. Because he's gaining. It's almost sounds like he's gaining an attribute.
He is standing in a different relationship to something else right. Change is relational. It's not intrinsic.
Right. That's what I would say the same thing. Yeah, I Say the same thing. But there's a there's a got to be a reason because in this issue that we're talking about here the necessity of God being Trinitarian.
The necessity of God being Trinitarian is connected to a bunch of things. But if you're getting back to the one in the many without getting too complicated. The one in the many is how we just express it.
But it's actually also related to knowledge and intelligibility. Because without feet without a metaphysical context that grounds the one in the man. You don't have a metaphysical context that can ground language.
You Lie and things like that you like for example connecting universal concepts that connect specific particulars you need to have Both a one and the many as a metaphysical ultimate. So so if there's only so if there's only a Unitarian God that actually will itself impinge upon the the idea of knowledge.
That such a view could actually reduce to skepticism which is part of the transcendental argument for the Trident God that the proof for the truth of the Trident God is that if you Were not true couldn't prove anything and someone says what about this Unitarian God?
The Unitarian God runs into the problem that his his or its being does not ground both Plurality and unity and so you still have this idea of what whatever ultimate.
What if the plurality was a transcendental quality of the Unitarian mind? It is knowledge base. What if the plurality was a transcendental quality in the sense that the Unitarian God knows all potentialities and that?
Potentiality of Transcendental relationship is a possibility.
No, I see when you say it's it's in it's a quality of his mind. Remember a God Without a body and so he is by essence a mind. So he would have to be if that was the case it would be grounded in his nature not just his mind.
He doesn't have a body with a mind who has this one in the many ground thing. He is a disembodied mind.
I've seen some 50s movies a 1950s movies that were like that. Bad joke. We're gonna talk about this off the air on on the phone sometime. Here's a question. I think he just froze. He I don't know. Yeah.
Yeah, he's froze but here's a question I'm still I'm running through all this thinking about this. I mean, I'm not saying everything I know or suspect or counters and things like that but Here's a question is Relationship.
Here's a question is relationship a necessary aspect of personhood.
Is relationship a necessary aspect of personhood. I Wanted I want to jump out on a limb and I want to say I want to say oh I was gonna say something that I don't know. If I want to say I would have to say yes.
Because because you're almost asking in an indirect way Is it possible for God to be a person without standing in relation? With with the other the persons within the Trinity I I would say that in order for there to be an unnecessary precondition for knowledge the ultimate grounding of reality must ground both the one and the many which are prerequisites to even make sense out of particulars and Universal.
So in an indirect way I'd had to be consistent with the Christian worldview. I would have to say yes, because you're dealing with the very nature of God and the Christian world. Grant the possibility.
But why. Hold on. But why would that be necessary. I don't. I and not I'm just playing devil's advocate because I. Because I don't. I don't think it must be necessary. I don't think there's anything to it.
That is intrinsic to it being necessary. And I think it's a case of causality. Right, you just we see this. That doesn't mean that that's the cause. There's no scripture that I'm trying to think of. A scripture I could turn to on it and I.
Well Andrew God is necessarily Trinitarian.
Yes, why. That's what I'm trying to discern as another topic. But why is he necessarily Trinitarian?
That's not a hard question to answer because when you Triune the answer to that can't go any deeper than then the brute factuality that got that's just the way God is. We say why is God all-knowing? Well, because it's his nature to be all-knowing.
You can't you can't appeal to some external fundamental. That's more primary than the nature of God himself.
God. Right but I would say I would say that God God's revelation of himself and the transcendental nature of the laws of logic and all that and morality. Reveal the necessity of his essence is not necessary because of some external thing.
But this is necessity of his essence and I'm trying that's what I've been saying about a lot lately.
I'm saying the metaphysical reality of the triune God must be true in order for even revelation to have Intelligibility since revelation itself presupposes a Grounding for the one in the many which is connected to knowledge.
The okay.
But knowledge itself, but Eli your argument your argument you're making is because God is relational.
But my nature by necessity. Yeah, but it's Unitarian. I'm looking at a Unitarian base to find problems with Unitarianism. I have a reason for going through all this.
Keep going. I'm gonna get Kittler. So here's the thing though. Because this is gonna be the challenge is what makes it? Necessary. The fact that he is relational doesn't mean that it's necessary for to be relational and that's where I'm.
Agree, I would disagree. You're veering off the transcendental necessity of the triunity of God if it's not necessary. Then you're you're actually placing contingency over the necessity of the triune God which he's.
Even our conversation right. Because you need the grounding for the one in the many which which actually accounts for the fact.
I'm not I'm not trying to justify him, but through contingency, but through revelation Necessity by his own essence. I'm trying to find that connection. Here's Kittler. There is a connection though.
The revelation. In order for revelation or or anything to make sense you still need a a metaphysical grounding for the one in the.
Met is putting Kittler up. Killer is his cat that has a mustache like Hitler. The hair part the heart part of the hair. And.
Watch this. Wait, let me show you something. You gotta see this. Okay. I know this is so off but look I gotta do this. Hold on.
There we go. Come on, this is this is great for podcasting. Yeah.
Now this is Kittler right here and I do this to him.
We don't we don't we're not seeing we're just seeing his tail he actually starts purring. I hit him hard. That's gonna be someone's gonna call PETA Abuse. Yeah.
He's the weirdest caddy, you know. Smack him smack him and he's close. He started playing the piano and everything. He loves it. So that that was Kittler. Okay I Try to do is find out a way to to get into the one mini issue and the refutation of Unitarianism as an intrinsically natural problem.
Because then we could deal with the issues of Islam. Which is one of the things I want to be able to do later. And so I'm trying to get into the into showing this this the problem of a Unitarian being but it has to be like logical Necessity and it has to be clear.
We can't get into some esoteric thing. That's so off where I have to teach people 18 concepts before they can understand something.
Right, I'm trying to but when you said something that it was an issue of revelation You're now dealing with epistemology. What I'm saying is that the metaphysical reality of the trial God is a Necessary transcendental.
I agree for the ability of even revelation. So, okay, so that is connected to the fact that God is by necessity Tri-personal he must be in order for there to be intelligibility.
Why must he be. Matt is stepping in your world grounding for the one in the many?
We'll have to talk about this. Okay? Yeah.
Yeah, but I think I think Matt's Matt's trying to step into their worldview first and you keep going back to yours.
Maybe I'm miss. I'm misunderstanding what he's asking. He's asking. I thought he was asking because I do understand the you have to be careful to do an extra, you know. But there's a difference between external and internal critique.
So maybe that I'm misunderstanding what he's asking from. Okay in the Christian worldview since I ground the necessity of knowledge in the ontological and metaphysical Tri-personal God then I could never grant that he's not that way and we can still have a rational conversation now.
I agree Unitarian does not presuppose a Tri-unity but then that is to his detriment since with when you denied the tri-unity you've actually removed God as an ontological grounding for the one and the many and so you can ground the one right.
But you don't know what I'm doing.
For example in Mormonism you have a God who is exalted by a God exalted by a God by God by God. You have an infinite regression of causes. Logically, that's impossible. Why is it impossible? And then we can give the reasons.
Okay, so. Yeah. Well, hold on hold on I'm just trying to illustrate that's all okay. I'm not jump into Mormonism, but Mormonism as an illustration of a problem with a regression of gods you can't have that and the logic is because you cannot have an infinite a set of Causes because there is no initial cause and if there's no initial cause you can't have a second or third or fourth or any others.
And it goes back an infinite amount of time and you can't cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. So it's just impossible real simple. Now Unitarianism can't work because real simple. That's what I'm trying to get to.
You see because with Mormonism the argument I'm showing here goes. Yeah. Well, you know, we presuppose a Trinitarian view. But what I'll do is talk to a Mormon ago. This is why your position doesn't work.
I got you. I got okay Unitarian. This is why your position doesn't work.
So then if I were you I wouldn't I wouldn't use the one in the many to demonstrate that. There are other ways. Transcendentally to to demonstrate that in a more easier fashion and by way of internal critique we when you use the mental argument Yes God is the metaphysical grounding for the one in the many.
But you don't always have to apply the transcendental critique by appealing to that because that is extract. You can use more simpler example.
I know why is a Unitarian being self-refuting?
Well when you're getting down to the essence I Again, you're looking for a quick explanation. I would say in this situation if you're going to Discuss the one in the many there is no simple explanation.
You're gonna have to sit. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Why is a Unitarian being?
Not possible because it does not ground the one in the many and it actually would reduce to an impossibility of knowledge acquisition.
Let's go to the knowledge one. Okay, you can't know anything. Okay, so no ability knowledge. All right, no ability. Yep. All right. So let's let's do this. It's like like the argument that I say with the materialists if you're materialist your brain it works on chemical reactions.
You cannot know if your materialism is true. Therefore. It's self-refuting. Okay simple. All right, so let's go with this one then. The knowledge problem. All right. Premise one. The Unitarian God and the issue of knowledge.
Now, why is that a problem? Why would you say that's a problem now? You said I'm with a one in the many which means now we've got to introduce the concept of the one in the minute and Explain it in such a way that it's understandable, right?
Right?
Well that that would be the task of the pre supper who wants to use that. But let's define our terms as we said in The beginning when you're saying what's the problem with the Unitarian God? That's still an ambiguous notion.
What what God are we talking about? Because if we don't define the God then I can't tell you why it's inadequate.
Let's do the Muslim God for example. Okay good Muslim God who is immutable eternal and Possesses a CIT. It does not grow in wisdom or knowledge. He's like a Trinitarian God. He's just not Trinity.
Okay, and so when we do an internal critique that is connected to the worldview system of.
Islam, correct? Right, so there's a logical reason why the why the the Unitarian view the Islamic Unitarian view or I would say any Unitarian view is logically impossible. Say say that part again that part again.
Was laughing because I go Exactly the same way again, that's the problem.
Okay, so the issue the grounding of knowledge. It's a grounding of knowledge problem. Okay. Now, why is it a grounding of knowledge problem?
Well, the very the very nature of of the Muslim God is unlike the Christian God.
He's allowed to deceive and so yeah, that's a yeah that I totally agree sir for 157 sir 354. I was just talking about that last night or two nights ago and today, but I want to go a different way.
I know we could we could go a different way. But that would cancel out knowledge on the Muslim conception, which is we just defined this way. You can't know anything, right? So and then that's it. So I so if you wanted an easy way We don't have to jump into the one in the many the very nature of that Unitarian God is already self-refuting.
So yeah, I totally agree. I totally agree. Okay, I got that. That's easy. I use that all the time.
Well, you want it easy. You're looking to go to this abstract very difficult concept and trying to boil it down and that's yes I am. Well, let's do it All right. Let's try. Let's try. Come on. Okay, so get it.
So you have the Unitarian God. Is this Unitarian God the grounding of logic. Yeah. Okay. So now if he's grounded if he's the grounding of logic, he must be consistent, right? Yes, and his nature must be consistent with with the ability to ground something like logic, correct, right.
And does logic not presuppose the coherency of a universal principle with particulars.
Now let's talk about that coherence of universal principle with particulars.
Okay, what do you want to talk about.
Universal principle with particulars, okay. Okay.
Okay. So if in order to ground logic you must also be able to ground Universals and particulars then that needs to be something that's part of the metaphysical essence of that being.
Let's break it down a little bit. Okay, let's say Table all right a universal you're breaking up a little bit table La Mesa table table table. Okay a table. All right. So we have the universal concept of table.
And we have particular instances of tables. Okay. All right, so. The that's the one in the mini. This is the very simplistic form of that. Okay, so what we'll have here are the transcendentals that are behind the idea of the particulars that we encounter.
So we encounter particulars, but we recognize those particulars because of the transcendental necessity which resides in God's mind. Right. Okay. Now here's the question Why can't a Unitarian being? Be the necessary grounding for that sense.
Which Unitarian being. Listen to the Muslim one, but but forget for now forget the idea that he's a deceiver. Nope. Okay, and that J dub God Jehovah's Witness God. I want you to trust. I know what I'm doing.
I know. I know.
Yes. The God. Then we're actually taking the you don't understand I'm doing Independent of a web and that's the way you refute it. You need to show there's inconsistencies within the web. If we don't define you can't just say a Unitarian God in general because then now you're talking about a neutral concept.
Okay, I I got you. Okay. I'm working on a certain logical point. Okay, a single logical point and we got we're gonna logical point once you get that down. Of course, it has to exist in a parameter of other things.
But what I'll do is I always look at one point and we're gonna focus on that not forgetting, you know, ultimately. The God of Islam is self refuting because it has historical errors in the Quran as well.
Because it's supposed to be true and there's satanic verses that were put in and taken out plus insert 354. He's a deceiver and insert for 157. He creates someone makes it look like Jesus. Yeah, I got all that.
What you're doing. You're trying to isolate and you're saying Eli.
Let's just say that there's a Unitarian being who's immutable. Okay eternal. Okay, and has a C a T. All right, and is non-trinitarian non-binarian. That's it. Okay, this is an exercise. So, how does a being like that ground universals in particulars if we're gonna say that.
Here's the question I have that if we're gonna say only the Trinitarian God can ground that. Okay, then I'm going to say is the same reason moved over to a Unitarian position valid. I hear me out because if we're to say that the true living God the reason we know that there's universals in particulars is Because of a transcendental necessity that he has in the idea of a table.
God knows all tables. All forms of tables and he's the one who transcendentally has revealed what table is out of his mind. We experienced because we're in the image of God we experienced particulars of tables.
Now the the issue here is that the transcendental is by nature an abstraction. Because a table nests the quality of that is something that occurs here and we recognize particulars. We wouldn't say that an abstraction is embedded into a physical object like a table.
Because then we would have a conflation of essence and we have ontological problems. So what we're saying here is that the tableness resides in the mind of God. So what we're saying is the transcendental is by nature an abstraction.
Does the abstraction necessitate a Trinitarian being or can it be possible in a single mind being since it's simply an abstraction.
No, it would have to be it would have to be in Triune mind because you have to have an ontological ground for the one in the many which is even which even different.
That could be in the Unitarian mind of the transcendental of one and he can imagine and know the potentials of all others, right?
Now I again, I know you the question. I know you don't think it's a problem. But I think it's a problem in that you still aren't we're not specific enough in regards to this Unitarian God. You have to be coming from a worldview to posit a specific Unitarian God.
Otherwise you have the Christian worldview bubble here. You have the Muslim bubble here and then we're floating somewhere in the middle talking about some Unitarian God. There's there's no necessary connection in which we can show a conflict.
You see you couldn't even know that you experience a table if Islam is true since for all, you know. We could be we could be living. Okay, give me the why. I'm sorry.
Aside from the issue of his deception. Okay, I already said I already said positive God that is Unitarian immutable.
You need to you need to couch that in a worldview because I don't believe there's a neutral concept of Unitarian Independent of a worldview system we're only. Your question almost implies the assumption that we can talk about this in a neutral fashion and even though you're Acknowledging that there are these outside connectors We're not allowed to talk about them for the sake of the example.
But those are the very elements that refute the fact that God is a deceiver. Everything we can talk about. Well, how do we make sense of a table? How do you know what a table is for all you know? That can just be part of the deception and that's always going to be linked to the critique if that makes sense.
Got you. I don't have a problem with that. Okay? Okay, what I'm trying to do is oh, let's go to the Christadelphian God, all right. I'm not very familiar with Christadelphianism, but I'll explain it's Christadelphian.
God is immutable Eternal. Has a CIT does not change in his knowledge base. But it's completely Unitarian. All right. This is Christadelphianism. It's okay. So we have a worldview. There are no false prophecies in the Unitarian position in in the Christadelphian position there are no false prophecies.
How do I know about how do we know about the what is the source of knowledge of the Christadelphian God? How do we know about the Christadelphian God so you're telling me about. I don't know. So if someone were to say hey look I believe in this God this God this God the part of the internal critique is for the person to lay out their position.
How do they know about this God? Well, why is it? Let me ask you Eli.
Why is it that the Mormon God an infinite regression thing that can't work? Say again. Why is it the infinite regression idea of the Mormon God can't work? What's the logical problem with it? There are logical problems with it.
What's the logical. Give me one one logical problem with an infinite regression of causes of God's become a God. I got it. I'll go back infinitely. What's the one logical problem. A Logical problem when we gets back after the unfreezing.
Okay. There you go. Now you're unfrozen. So what's the logical problem?
With it with an actual infinite. You can't have an actual infinite number of things that there you have.
So what you just did was you said the logical problem in that is the problem an actual infinite can't exist. Gotcha, right the Unitarian God. What's the logical problem? I can't exist because it's like saying because an actual infinite can't exist.
What you're doing in the Mormon one is you're actually identifying the logical problem, right? But when I ask you about the Unitarian one, I'm saying let's do the same thing. Let's find a logical problem with it and you say we can't do that, but you just did it with Mormonism.
No, no, no. No, no. Here's the thing when you yes. Yes. Yes. Yes you when you tell me about a position I know nothing about I can't identify a logical issue. If I don't know enough about the position unless the logical issue is explicit right off the bat like say something like an infinite regression.
Of God's that's an easy one. But if there you go, but it's a logical issue. The infinite regression is a logical problem. Yes, no, we you and I would agree. They don't and we can ultimately ground watch a logical problem only with the revelation of Scripture in the inner Trinitarian God.
We agree, but what we can do is say it's a logical problem. Here's why now We're not telling the opponent so to speak the ultimate issue of the grounding of the logic that we're using. Anyway, what we're talking about is here's the way you understand this.
You can't have an infinite regression. They go. Oh, I get that Unitarianism you can't have a uterine God. This is why oh, I get that. That's what I'm looking for right, but.
It's not as quick as as something like what you just said in regard. I know it's not.
That's right, so that's what I'm saying, so let's go this now, let's continue. We can do this.
From that perspective. That's why I'm asking the question that if the if the contradiction is not as explicit you ask questions. So that you get a fuller understanding and then you engage in internal critique.
You can't engage in internal critique if the person hasn't. I understand. I understand.
Let's go back to the knowledge thing. Why is it a Unitarian God?
Can't ground knowledge. Well, because knowledge presupposes logic and logic requires a Metaphysical grounding for the one in the many I know. And you can't a Unitarian God can't. Why can't a minute?
Why can't a Unitarian God not ground the one mini issue?
Because you have within a Unitarian God you need in order to ground the one in the many issue Both unity and plurality need to be equally on fundamental within a Unitarian God you do not have Equal ultimacy between the one in the many within his very nature equal ultimacy has to do with predestination that Which can be applied to predestination, but when we say God is triune We would say that plurality and unity are equally ultimate in God.
I'm not trying to use it. Okay, that's fine. Okay.
But you still have not Granted or had not proven connected dots. Why you're just saying they can't do it.
Why can't I did explain why. Because you need a one in the many grounding and a Unitarian God by definition by very essence.
Okay, why can't he because if one in many the concept of one in many. Maybe I'm not getting what one in many really is but what I've seen it and I've studied it. I've seen what people say. This is why I'm having a problem.
So Matt yesterday are talking. We're having a problem. I'm going through this book. I don't think the definitions are nearly sufficient. I don't think is the it's just it's problematic. And so when I think of things I think of things very very particularly and so this is what I'm trying to get at.
Because I believe that if they could be solved it becomes a very powerful weapon. That's what I spend the time on. Yeah, so but that but one in a many God is the art. The Christian God is the one mind That conceives of all idea ideas of table.
So because he's the author of table. Right the one mind of God, right? Mm-hmm. Okay, the one mind of the other Unitarian God.
See, we'd have to go into we'd have to go into whether a unit the very concept of Unitarian God is even coherent because you need. That's what I'm trying to do. Well, I'm telling you that it's not because of the.
Why isn't it because the God needs to be. In other words The one in the many needs to be the metaphysical grounding for the coherency of every other one in the many where you have tables Concepts you need a metaphysical context in which that can be spoken of.
Intelligent metaphysical context would have to be the mind of God. Yes, the ontological Trinity. Now if you don't have the ontological Trinity, then you have okay. I'm okay.
I'm there, but I don't see the logical necessity yet. And that's the thing. I'm having a problem in that book. Make statements. I don't see a logical necessity. You know, I believe it. Yes, but it's not sufficient.
If I'm gonna argue this and debate it I have to be able to connect the dots and to be honest I can't connect the dots yet. Because if I'm going to say in the Trinitarian mind God is a single mind who has the you know Pericles says he has this issue of the Trinitarian nature.
Okay. Well, he's still one mind and that's how it's perceived. How God is a Trinitarian mind so we have the Unitarian mind. If we're gonna say in the one mind of the triune God and this gets to be paradoxical we're talking like this.
We're gonna say that there is this concept of table. It's only exists because God has authored it or has known it or will just say authored for now for eternal eternal.
Eternal it's the Trinity the trying God has authored it. So it's a product. Absolutely, right? It's the product of the triune mind. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Accounts for particular.
Tables and the universal concept of table. What's required. What's required for a transcendental a mind. Say that again. You're you skipped out what's required for a transcendental a mind, right? Okay, does it require three minds or one mind?
I would say if you're gonna get down to the ultimate reality that that is the originator of all things I would have to say plurality.
So the plurality mind is a necessity to in order to have a transcendental.
That that's just equivalent of saying that the Trinity is a pre is a necessary correct prerequisite for transcendental. Yes.
Okay. Why is it a triune mind and that's a transcendental a necessity for transcendentals?
Because I'm not a single mind. Because you need a grounding for the one and the many if you don't know what what is it?
That grounds the one in the many and that's different that's different than a Unitarian mind. But if the one in the many is simply a concept in the sense that the one is a transcendental It's not it's a concept.
It reflects it reflects the triune God who created reality so that everything I'm talking about. I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the nature of a transcendental. Okay. The nature of a transcendental is it's a it's abstract. Right, and it's universal and you know, it does not depend on space and time. So it's an it's it not authored by God in that it came into existence.
I don't want to say that I'm gonna use the word author in that is concomitant with the eternal nature of God's mind. Right. That's how I'm gonna use the word author in that sense. So or I should say revealed that's a better way it's revealed in the mind of God.
Now I say this I'm saying the mind not the minds and. So if we say in the mind of God, we have a transcendental then what we're saying is we have one mind that authors a transcendental. That reveals a transcendental which is a product or necessary aspect of God's existence.
The transcendental because he knows all things it's an issue of it's an epistemological issue related to its ontological essence. And so the transcendental nature, which is that transcendentals are abstractions abstract you require mind three minds or one mind one mind.
Because it's an abstraction one mind is sufficient for an abstraction. Therefore we have a transcendental abstraction. All we necessitate. All we need is a single mind. I don't see why this is where I'm at.
I don't see why there's a logical necessity to say the Trinitarian set up is as the only precursor for the intel for intelligibility if we're going to be using help me out if we're going to be using this issue of logic in order to determine these things by saying then that a transcendental is an abstraction that requires a mind and a Unitarian is a mind that could offer a transcendental.
We would get back into the same you said a lot so I wanted to stop and then press somewhere.
But I kind of forgot where I was gonna go with. Okay, let me go back and say this. Okay, the transcendental is an abstraction universal absolute immutable as abstraction. Okay, Rick it only occurs in the mind.
Okay. Okay. Stop right there. So you said that it requires a mind the mind of God, but the mind yeah God is God himself. Okay, there's not God and then he's he is but the nature of that God is that he is both Equally and in an ultimate sense both one and many.
So the very mind of God is the metaphysical context that grounds and unifies Particular things and the universal concepts that give coherence to them. We couldn't even have this conversation without the metaphysical context of the ontological Trinity because even Conversation presupposes a necessity of the grounding of the one of the many.
Now you say well, why doesn't a Unitarian God? Why can't a Unitarian God do that? Because one in many is not equally ultimate within him. He is just one because the very definition of a Unitarian God is that he is one in essence.
There is no plurality to him and so but a plural would actually be will be a contingent property for him in order for there To be plurality within Unitarianism. He'd have to create it.
We're having we're getting down. We're getting narrowed down to the problem here the definition. It's okay. So it's great. The one in the many versus transcendence. These are the things you have to be defined now.
What do you translate by that Matt. Because I would say that one in many is Transcendent since God is transcendent and God is triune by necessity. So I would say the one in the many is transcendent and it gives coherency To the one in the many as weak as creatures experience it in human experience.
The one in a mini is based on transcendence. It is not trans based on God because it's based on God. Yes, but God's mind Is the transcendent necessity for all transcendence? All right, say that one more time and try to try to chew on that God's mind is the is the transcendent necessity of all transcendence.
Okay, I would just say he grounds all transcendent. He's a transcendent being. He's the ontological grounding for for for those things.
Well, he's a transcendent necessity for all other.
Transcendence. And when you say he I would say you're referring to a triune the one who's Metaphysically both equally one and many. So so that. Well.
You're jumping ahead. Okay. This is what Matt yester does.
I'm like, whoa, but back the truck.
All right, so God is it. I say that God is a transcendent necessity of all transcendental I should say okay, and what I mean by that is that I had to define a little bit because a trance a Transcendental what is a transcendental first of all?
Okay, we're thinking past each other a transcendental. It's a transcendental is an abstraction That has universal truth. Universal immutable truth, okay. Right. Now, let's make it we could work on that.
Okay. Such as table as a transcendent. A Transcendent, I wrote abstraction. Okay. Maybe there's a better word and. So God would know God would know what a transcendental issue is of of a table and he would also know particulars of table, right.
Mm-hmm. Okay, I'm write this down Transcendent nature of table as well as all particulars of Table. All right. Now this right here simply requires a mind, doesn't it?
A triune mind and a creature and a creature. Okay, I could understand that truth is a creature that's made in the image of the triune God. And so we think in those one in the many categories by necessity.
Okay. So why is a triune mind the only explanation? Since all we need is a mind.
Again, that's like that's like saying how do I know the triune God exists with by a Transcendental necessity by the impossibility of the contrary. Yeah, in other words, I couldn't I would to deny it I would have to already presuppose some other Foundation that could account for the one in the many because then I'd have no justification for everything that I use.
But I don't. I got you. I don't see you connecting the dots though I'm I affirm all this you can remember. I'm not arguing against it. Okay, I affirm all this. I've got something going on. But not only once this once the tool has been made I can apply it different ways.
Yes. That's what I want to ultimately do. And to be honest. I can't forge the tool yet. Right, and let's see it's difficult. You know what? I've been working on thinking about lately. Coincidentally and then Matt yesterday we're talking about it now.
We're talking about it is a few weeks ago I started wondering why is God necessarily a Trinity?
See, I don't understand how you could ask that question that that's equivalent of saying how. Why does God necessarily know everything? You're just asking about why is God? Why does God have the nature that he has?
When I ask why is God necessarily a Trinity? I'm not asking if there's some quality External by which necessitates upon him.
But there is an internal. Okay, there's a so if you're not asking for that, you're not asking for an external. Reason why. Because then that would be an issue of now. What's your ultimate authority? I Would say that since unity and plurality are necessary prerequisites for knowledge.
The fact that there is knowledge and God is a knower. He must have that nature because it is a necessary prerequisite he has to be that way in order for.
Knowledge to be had since you need those unity that I think is a problem with saying it that way. I hear what you're saying. Okay, but I think it begs the question What I'm trying to let me see if I can Let me see if I can articulate what I'm trying to say is okay, is that because we can think logically and logic is a transcendental emanation Actuality of God's nature.
I don't know how to describe it the right way but because of it then nature and Logic and God's nature. I'm gonna I'm risking some stuff here the transcendental nature of logic and the transcendental nature of God's essence.
Have a commonality to some degree one is impersonal but one is per other is personal. Now God himself as a being is personal. A Transcendental is by nature. Impersonal because a transcendental is an abstraction.
An abstraction does not have Fellowship. An abstraction does not have Intimacy. An abstraction doesn't have a conversation. An abstraction is here. So what we have in the mind of God are impersonal abstractions because they're not little sub beings or gods or live.
Yeah, so So this is what I'm thinking of now that but but we see in this we had to have the the the reality of logic. Logos the word I think there's something going on here. I'm really trying to work through all this.
And so I've been thinking about it I don't know who to talk to about it, and I can't even articulate what I'm thinking because it's just so it is so the thing is I Suspect or I believe I believe that logic itself Exists only because God exists.
Do you have no problem with that? I know that and but I also think that logic is a fingerprint of the nature of God and that we can use it to Internally define the necessity of.
His essence being Trinitarian. Well because well, yes, so his essence logic is God's thinking it reflects his yes. Which is by nature Trinitarian, so if we know that by Revelation, that's right. So if it reflect well, there's no such thing as non-revelation.
We find ourselves as human beings. Yeah, absolutely. That's why we know it by Revelation. That's right. So right when we say that logic is Reflecting the mind of God then you are agreeing with me that You needed the Trinity to ground logic since it logic reflects his mind.
It must itself reflect that unity and plurality. That's right. That's necessary to God's being that's the logical necessity that I would say.
But what I'm going to talk to someone who's not a Trinitarian. What I'm looking at and this could be risky. That's why I say it's risky. It's almost like I'm trying to find a logic outside of God to determine God's logical necessity.
Right. Right, and so I'm aware of that but I'm not. I don't want to do that and I recognize that that's a risk. That's why I say it's risky to say this, but I'm not trying to say that. I'm trying to say that that it's like looking into a room where God is and we see the light coming out.
We can use that light that comes out to describe him and we can say because light is this way He's that way and there's a relationship between them because this is necessary because he's necessary. Yeah question that it is.
Is there a mutual necessity of his essence with that? If that makes sense, that's what I'm trying to get at, right?
I would say yes, because it is and again you get into the issue between the differences between Gordon Clark and Van Till. Gordon Clark and I tend to agree with him. Although I go back and forth to some people Gordon Clark translated John 1 1 in the beginning was the logic.
So the word logos the word. In other words, he described logic as God thinking. But if it's God thinking and it's his thoughts. It's his mind. It is that sense. That's impersonal. It's an essential feature of God.
God's thinking is is not it can't connect that with God's me.
Yeah, but then you couldn't have an impersonal thing become personal. That's an ontological problem. I don't think Clark's got that right by saying that it's just it's just the logic the thinking of God thinking itself is not Personal.
If I have a thought it's an abstraction, but an abstraction by definition is not personal. It's not self-aware.
Right, it's not alive. But Matt if logic reflects the trying God it reflects the trying God. And so logic must have as its necessary grounding the one in the many because God is the one in the men.
When you say God is the one of the many what you're saying is that God is a transcendental being? Who's aware of all potential aspects of a transcendental concept like table? But that he's self-sufficient.
He doesn't need anything for the actualization of table. He's aware of it knows all potentials and knows all you know.
Particular particular or potential particulars, but forgot to know an individual table in his mind there already needs to have one in the many concepts intrinsic with eat within that for example.
That's what I don't see. The dot connected between that and the one of many and that he's been Trinitarian. That's I believe it's necessary. I don't see that logical necessity yet.
No. Oh, no, I I I'm the thing I hate is I don't want to stop this but we came up on time. It's like you know, I'm enjoying it. I've been putting the comments up. I just decided to let you to go but because a lot folks are it's funny.
They're going are these guys debating? What are they debating? No one can figure it out and I'm typing to people this is what it's like when when you have Philosophers theologians that are trying to work through an issue and that's what this is a very difficult Issue.
He's gonna shoot up out of bed and be like I understand it but when you do that call Eli not me, okay.
Well Eli and I have discussions like this. Yeah, we've been doing this for years and that's why I think it's good.
I think it was good. It's good for some folks to see you know, how People work through the issues because what you're trying to do is give an answer. You're trying to work through an argument. I like the way you explained it by saying it's a tool and once you figure out the tool you can then apply it in different areas, but With some of the philosophy it's not so easy just to Walk up and go.
Okay. Here we go. And this is the answer and for people who you know I'll put this on in your in your plate Matt in the sense of you've been doing this for like 40 years, right?
You're 60 in January to be 40 years old. So so 63, I cannot believe it, man.
Why is he loves a. It's it's three years ago three times your mental age. It's it's three years ago since you tried to kill us in in that ice black ice storm. Well, that was fun. The short of the story is we we hit black ice.
Matt managed to strike every car. Every person that was staying at his house. We're sitting there and we're waiting. The police don't want us to leave because they want to do a report. And and we finally were like, look, we just go and he's like no I got a report and matt goes look there all these guys.
I hit them. I hit him. They're staying in my house. We could fill figure out the insurance. The guy goes wait a minute. You hit all these guys. Yes, and they're staying in your house. Yes. Go just get out of here.
We're like 22 cars in an involved. I actually banged into luke's car staying in his house.
I slid and everybody was ahead of me. I slid into luke's car. I just you know couldn't help it. Bounced off of him. I hit another car and happened to be dave's car.
You know, it just was this weird. They were all staying with me. It was just I had I had said to my wife i'm, like you go with dave because. Ended up finding out we had we were short on cars. So we ended up having it word Like dave's gonna be safe.
Go with dave. I'll go with luke and and like soon as you hit Luke and I didn't even realize it was you until we saw Jim and dave on the side of the road when you hit them. You're like, oh and then luke goes.
I think that was matt that hit me but actually.
Luke was sliding into my lane too a little bit. It is one of those things and he was sliding.
We thought we were just gonna miss it and boom, but uh, yeah. So so but for folks who are watching this time because I wanted to let this go and I I you know I took I backed out of it because I think it's good for folks to see how we go about having to wrestle with these things.
Not all this stuff is is just easy concepts, but then. When you're trying to formulate. Not only the the right way of saying it. You're trying to formulate. Okay. Here's here's what's going on and here's how to apply it and what for folks that were can, you know watching or hearing what you're seeing is.
You're seeing two guys trying to make sure they're on the same page with their terminology. And concepts and then the applications of them and it's not always easy. Uh, so I know some someone early on was going my brain hurts.
Sometimes these things do but what ends up happening and this is the reason we we do this sort of stuff is. Because after this gets worked out. Then we find as matt said earlier a simple way of explaining this.
So you don't have to explain 18 topics to be able to to refute an argument. Well andrew and that's what he's trying to do.
Look at the idea of is jesus god. Yes. Does jesus get uh, does god get hungry? No, did jesus get hungry? Yes. People debated how to make sense out of that but also that matt could write a small little article and then we could use it.
In a in a vandalism.
Yeah, yeah, that's what I do. See, I try and do I try and do the heavy lifting of thinking through all these things. But this is so esoteric and so difficult that i'm not able to solve it on my own. And that's why i'm going to you and matt yester.
And because you guys both have good minds when it comes to matt yester.
Why is he not. We got to get matt yester back in here. We haven't seen him in these.
Well, yeah, so it has a yes back. Yes or a question. He only has uh, he has a four speed transmission. And only two of the gears are operating third and fourth. Yeah. No, that's not a question. He's off.
I think you got that wrong. He's great guy. He's got he's got five gears and it's only four and five that are working.
Well, he's really great, but maybe the three of us could sit here and work through this because My job as an apologist is to break it down and connect those dots to make it understandable to people. So if I don't cease, I mean, of course the trinitarian god's necessary precondition for eligibility, of course It's a revelation revelatory necessity and we can't abandon the christian worldview and argue rationally, of course.
No problem. I could sit there and argue that all day. Not a problem because i'm not going to abandon the christian worldview. What i'm trying to do is develop a tool the same way I could say in mormonism the infinite regression god problem Is faulty because now in this issue, it's a simple one because of an actual infinite doesn't work.
And we could expand on that but that's easy to understand. But what that's doing Of course is just simply giving them a rational reason. They're not aware that they're inside the trinitarian world and they don't understand that but I can use that and say this is why you can't Work ultimately that's because of the trinitarian worldview.
I'm trying to do the same thing with eutherianism. So without them explaining the trinitarian necessity i'm trying to show them something that doesn't work From their inside perspective, but it's all ultimately for the trinitarian perspective.
And if I'm going to argue for example with a muslim and yes, I can do the sorry 354 I could do the self-deception thing and I was doing that today, you know, i'm trying to find an additional tool That I can use and have in the quiver and this one.
I think the potential here is is far greater Than just simply hey all allied. It's far greater. It has a far more applicable thing. And that's why i'm sure i'm really trying to work on this.
Can I can I say something real quick and andrew? I know you're trying to finish up too just real quick and this is sure. This is helpful.
See, I let these two go for a while. What happened? They just they just don't want to stop.
Go ahead. Well, you can wrap up. I'll i'll talk to him. No, go ahead. Finish up finish up. Well, I just want to let you know that where myself and matt yester learns all this stuff Is listening to greg bonson's lectures.
He does talk about these kinds of things and and about universals in particulars and how that all works together. And obviously I would never compare myself to bonds and he explains it so clearly so you might want to look into.
Maybe when you talk to matt yester, he can direct you to the specific lecture and you could download it and give it a listen. Sure, absolutely. Yeah.
Absolutely and and for folks who are watching listening. Here's the thing. This is what we've seen throughout church history. You know, we we you're hearing a lot of discussion on the trinity. But you know, there was a time where they wrestled the early church fathers wrestled with the idea of the trinity.
Was a solution to a problem. Right, how could jesus? He had to be god to pay an eternal fine. We just lost matt. I don't know if he did he might have accidentally booed himself. Yeah. Yeah. We we look at the early church and what do you see?
You you end up seeing that they realized that jesus christ had to be god here. He is he's coming back in. The wrong button, obviously. Yeah, obviously so jesus christ. They realized had to be god to be a punishment of sin.
To pay an eternal fine, but they also realized he had to be a man. And so they're struggling with this and this is where you start to see some of these things form. Where they first are dealing with, you know, the whole hypostatic union the fact how could he be?
He's fully god and fully man. And then once you say he's fully god. Well, then what do you do with god the father? And then the holy spirit and so there was this wasn't some you know, like we take for granted The trinity and the definitions that we have there and the hypostatic union and the definitions we have there.
But the men who wrestled with this did what you saw for the last hour for months and in some cases years. Of wrestling through the scriptures wrestling through the philosophy until we got the as matt was saying earlier the tool.
Or the solution that we use. And so I know for some people it hurt their brain but Learn people enjoyed it. Yeah. Oh, yeah, I was putting up those comments where people were saying they really enjoyed it.
They enjoyed the you know because theology and philosophy one person said that they go together and you can't separate these and I think that it was helpful for people. Otherwise, you know, I mean that's why I wanted it.
That's why I just backed out and took andrew and I out and let you two go back and forth. So people can can watch that because it's helpful for folks. Yeah, so um so next next week I don't know what we're doing next week.
I gotta look because i'm not sure I I don't know that I will be able to host because I will be actually I know I won't be because uh, I will be in uh Raleigh I think i'm wrong. Well, i'm in north carolina with uh with Dr. Anthony silvestro and he will be speaking next thursday night.
So I will not be able to host Apologetics live, but i'll see if I can get someone else to to fill in and uh, folks who were some people were asking late at the end of the show how your wife was doing matt go back and watch the Beginning we we covered that but continue praying for matt's wife they're going to try to Tough out another winter in idaho, which is not the best for his wife.
But they're going to do that so that they could try to get the house back on sale for the spring. So be praying for that. Anyone wants to move to boise? There's a house for sale just contact. You know matt go to you know carm contact and say i'll buy your house you know.
And then he can move sooner just saying if for anyone that's looking to move out. You know the only advantage to you know moving out there is uh, you can carry a gun. That's a big advantage. Yes, it is so with that, uh.
So matt good to have you back.
Huh? We're still free here in idaho.
Not for long. You got the californians moving in. They're going to change that laws. Yeah, um, oh and and here here real quick. Uh, this aired last night, but gospel the gospel truth says matt slick did great in the debate.
Um, that's right. It was a few weeks ago. It went well. I've just been a while. We we did it. We pre-recorded it a long time and then it was released last night.
So you like that good? Yeah, and here you go. This one's from matt. Jason manning is saying boise is california. 2 .0.
No, it is not. Oh, man.
All right. So with that folks, i'm glad glad you guys watched. Um,. Check out carm .org check out striving for eternity .org. Eli. Do you have a website yet?
Um almost. But I do have a podcast and um. And a youtube channel, which I just have just have a little bit of content there. But i'm going to start moving that along so they can check. You do it backwards.
Website first. Website first.
I'm working on fumes man. I it's so hard for me to get anything done. I'm just trying to do the best I can.
Yeah, well we we appreciate it. Thanks for coming in. I think it was a good discussion. It was educational helpful for many. So until next week if there is no show i'll put something up on apologetics live .com.
So just always go there and eli I should say publicly. Thanks for letting me know. Like just minutes before that. I had old links. So I corrected that. So until until next week. Remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of god.
See you.