Keep sharing good news without ads.
Join us tomorrow as we bring the smoke
You can say what you want, but you won't around me. Sheep among misfits, a misfit in the trailer park at night. A misprint with the sixth sense, been sick ever since my brother died of an O .D. My two cents never made sense, either to me or anyone else inside of the sheep fence.
My 9th Smith on my right side, why you staring at your cop dot sign and my John Hancock on the dotted line? Tell me what's the bottom line? The bottom line is I'm not right. I'm not left, but this elephant won't fight.
There's nothing left but the spotlight, hold my spear, you can find me in the moonlight. You can say what you want, you can say what you want, but you won't around me. You can say what you want, you can say what you...
I'm with sin, the deep end, and I can't find my assigned seat to sit in. My theology don't fit in, black sheep of the Reformation sheep pen. To the Reformed, I'm just another Baptist, baptized again. The bastard child of Anabaptist, host to child of Reformation society.
We don't need your education. Give me a Bible and a bookshelf of dead men, cigars, bourbons, and beer cans. Bow ties, tattoos, and bearded men making Reformation great again. You can say what you want, you can say what you want, but you won't around me.
You can say what you want, you can say what you...
All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Open Air Theology Show. My name is Jeff, and I am one of the elders of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church here in Tallahoma, Tennessee. If you're ever in the area, please stop by, say hello, smoke a cigar.
It's all good in our hood. And I'm going to pass it over to my co-host, Brayden Patterson. Introduce yourself, brother.
I'm Pastor Brayden of Valley Baptist Church in Southern Idaho. If you live around the area of Hagerman, Idaho, it would be a blessing to have you come worship God with us. Sundays at 11 in the morning.
I also have a YouTube channel called Reformed Ex-Mormon. I make pipes on Donner's Oak Company. It's a blessing to be a part of Open Air Theology and be a co-host here. I will pass the mic, not this way, but this way to my co-elder, Rick, over here.
I'm Rick Emerson. As Brayden said, I am co-elder at Valley Baptist. And that's pretty much everything about me.
John, introduce yourself, brother.
Sure. Well, there's not much for me to say. My name is John. And I'm a co-host of a podcast called Rick to Reformed. And I'm here to hopefully fill in for Haps Addison to God's glory.
Yeah, so Haps wasn't feeling well. He's dealing with some blood pressure issues. So y 'all be in prayer for him. Of course, I was giving him a hard time about it because that's just what we do. Yeah, so tonight's episode is Calvinism.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Brayden, what are you smoking right now?
You know, I'm smoking some predestination right here. No, I was just smoking some jolly good tobacco. I don't know the name off of it off the top of my head. It's from a local cigar shop in Boise. So it's good stuff.
Very delicious.
Sweet, sweet.
So I was going to have Haps to kind of bring us in right here. And so since Haps isn't here to kind of catch people up to speed, I don't feel like I am exactly up to speed. So I'm going to let Brayden fill us in.
What's going on, Brayden? Yeah, so the reason why are we doing this episode?
Right, the reason we definitely want to talk about Calvinism is because of a series of events. So last week Haps was invited or I don't know exactly the details of how he got plugged in with these guys.
But with JP Uncut and Truth Cartel, I can't remember exactly the name of the YouTube channel. But these two individuals on YouTube, he and Tim Jones were supposed to be getting on and talking about Calvinism.
And so Haps last week wasn't feeling very good because of a headache. And so he just asked Jeff and I about an hour before the show if any of us could get on and fill in for him. I said yes. And so I immediately ran over to my church, started grabbing just some books just to do a quick brush up on things, thinking that we were going to be talking about regeneration preceding faith and predestination regarding salvation specifically.
However, I'll just keep on going and tell them what this whole event was. So we joined in on this debate with this JP Uncut gentleman. No one was in on the show until right when the time started. And so typically right here in this atmosphere with Brother Rice, John and Rick here, we got on beforehand, we were able to talk about what we were wanting to discuss, all those kind of things.
There was no intro whatsoever when it came to this dialogue with JP Uncut. And so we just jumped on, almost immediately went live once he got on. And it was immediate out of the gate that it seemed like this was not going to be a debate.
It was going to be more of a, I don't even know what to discuss, like what it would be classified as. But I was expecting to have something of the event of, hey, you will have 10 minutes to do this and we'll have 10 minutes and we'll have a rebuttal and rebuttal and questions.
And we'll let each other talk and be a little bit more respectful. It came out of the gate just not being that. It was definitely far different than that. And so I think tonight what we're going to be wanting to talk about is Calvinism.
We're going to want to talk about some of the arguments that they were bringing up on the show. And also discuss about just maybe some of the dangers of Christians doing some of these YouTube shows, because I think that that was very not great behavior demonstrated as far as what a Christian ought to be behaving as.
And that's coming from a gentleman that I know that I know I need to work on this area. And so it's just something that we want to definitely say these things in love and hopefully help help help other brothers in Christ reflect the image of Christ that much better today.
So.
Yes. So, John, you might know a little more than I do on their theological standpoint. I was told that they are provisionist, but from listening to them, I really didn't get that vibe. Do you know more than I know?
Yeah, well, I'm not entirely sure what they would classify themselves as. JP himself has said he's like almost Molinist, but not completely in the sense that he he doesn't believe in middle knowledge the way that most Molinists would, but he does affirm a type of Molinism.
But in terms of our disagreements, he affirms conditional salvation. That is, you're saved so long as you are continuing to believe, and he believes you can forfeit that faith and lose your salvation as a consequence.
And so that's that's one area. And his other perspective is he believes that some things have been determined, but he doesn't believe that all things have been determined. And so those were the core disagreements between him and I.
But that just branches off into a bunch of other categories as well. But the specific topic in that discussion was whether or not God determined all things, it sounded like.
Right, right, right.
Rick, I know that you said that you watched a little bit of it. I would like to for everyone that's listening to hear your perspective and and as as Brayden's co-elder. What were your immediate thoughts?
How do you think Brayden was treated on that episode?
Well, yeah, I just I thought it was kind of just a mess. It seemed like there was very much organization to it. And I understand that you have debates that are not formal, but you have to have some respect and not just talking over.
And so I didn't hear the whole thing. I listened to maybe 20, 25 minutes straight, and then I listened to another five or 10 minutes in addition to that. And so there is a lot of talking over and some mocking.
And I can understand that to a degree where I'm OK with that. But from my little glimpse, it seemed like it was past that point of being OK. It wasn't appropriate. And for me, just popping in for a little bit mid debate, it was kind of like, what's going on here?
Like this seemed like something among brothers, but it was right. It was kind of a mess.
Did you feel like Brayden was given the right hand of fellowship, let's say?
Well, I don't. From the 25, 30 minutes, Brayden only has little bits and pieces that I was able to hear him talk. He wasn't given much opportunity in the time that I was listening for him to be able to share his views on it.
Yeah, so one thing. So Brayden mentioned earlier that we jump on a few minutes beforehand and just kind of, you know, chat a little bit. And so. Each one of us don't, you know, all four of us together, we don't have the same theological perspective.
We're all Reformed Baptists, but there's things here and there that we wish the other person would believe. Like I wished all three of these brothers would believe like me. Right, because there's going to be future episodes where I'm going to have to put them in their place.
Right.
I say that tongue in cheek because, you know, they are professing believers in Christ. Brayden, I know super well. Rick, I'm getting to know. John, I just met tonight. And I can say wholeheartedly, I love these brothers and I want them to walk away thinking, you know, just a little crazy.
But he showed me Christian love, fellowship.
And if I had if I had something that I would say, I was able to say it, even if it's in disagreement.
Yes.
I think along with that, that you want to if you disagree with someone, but OK, they're my brother. I want them to come to my understand. I want to be able to have understanding. I want to see my point.
I don't want them just to. And that's what I felt like watching that debate. It was just dismissal, like you're an idiot, like for believing that which among us where we know each other, you can have some more of that, that joking and more of that kind of language.
But if you don't know, like Brayden, you know, those guys, they didn't know him just to jump in the middle of something and begin mocking right away. Like, OK, are we are we brothers? Are we on the same side here or not?
Which and I think that was even shown even more in the map for just also said it in the second show. He was definitely not created, treated with Christian love. And I think one of the greatest, like the most clear example of this is and I think it shows the presuppositional and vindictive attitude that they have towards Calvinism and reform theology in this regard was they had a Muslim join on in the second show on the truth cartel, I think is what it's called.
And there was far more respect from the parts that I've seen, the parts that I witnessed when I was in there talking with these guys, far more respect shown towards the Muslim rather than towards the Calvinist, which is, I think, remarkable to even think about.
And even when they were discussing this with the Muslim, they thought the Muslim was going to have a stance on Allah that was similar to that of a Calvinist and predestination in God's decree. But when he spoke on it and it came out to being that it was more Muslim, there are more Molinistic in his description of how Allah worked.
They were totally different. It was actually really remarkable when I watched that and how their tones changed, their acceptance of him changed, the letting him talk and read from the Quran. It blows my mind compared to that versus when the Calvinists, the reformed individuals were on and were trying to read Bible verses and were being interrupted and not being able to discuss on full length of what their opinion was on something.
It was very interesting. Never had that experience before.
Right, right.
Hey, John, let me ask you, you know them a little. Well, you know them. We don't.
Yeah.
Would they consider Calvinist brothers? Would they consider us Christians?
I think they would say yes. But their attitude says otherwise. To me, it's really hard to tell because they say, I think they would say that they're my brothers, but the way they act, it's almost like they wouldn't let me in their house.
I was dialoguing with JP the other night on compatibilism, and it was the exact same thing from the predestination debate, but like 8v1 because I was the one Calvinist there. And I was just like, wait, what?
We're brothers here. Why is this happening?
Hey, would you mind explaining compatibilism? Just since you brought up the word, you know, there could be someone watching that doesn't know what that means.
Compatibilism is basically the thesis that if determinism or the idea that all things were determined were true, then there would be no mutual contradiction between freedom and determinism. And so basically it's this idea that they can coexist, whereas incompatibilism is the opposite idea, that if it were true, determinism wouldn't negate freedom in such a way that you could be morally responsible.
So those are the two views. And he's an incompatibilist, but we are compatibilists. And so that was basically the discussion. Is determinism and freedom compatible with things? Can they work together?
And his view is no. And so it would be his burden to show that they are mutually exclusive. And the only thing he could give me was, well, if you're determined, then you're not free. And I was like, well, now you're just assuming the thing we're disagreeing about.
So we'll get into that. That's a good point. Excuse my stutter. For those that watch normally, they know I have a stutter. Something I can't help. So HAPS, after the show, was in the process of trying to set up a debate.
So we were offering them two versus Brayden and myself, and HAPS was going to moderate the debate. And we thought it was going to happen, right, Brayden? We thought it was a go, and then all of a sudden, they did not want the debate.
And I'm not sure if they watched this or not, but on air, I want to issue a challenge. I want to issue a challenge to them, myself and Brayden Patterson. Look at that dog. Challenges you guys to a public moderated debate on Calvinism.
Proposition, does regeneration precede faith? Because that's where the argument stands and falls. And we challenge you. Pick up the mantle. If you're really about that life, pick up the mantle. Let's do this.
But other than that….
Do you mind if I say something on that real quick too, Jeff?
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, so that would be a debate issue out to JP Uncut and the Truth Cartel gentleman as well. And part of this is that HAPS, I reached out to JP, and it sounded like he was saying no to it. However, this is again the issue with how they were treating the Muslim.
They're saying no to having a moderated official debate with a Calvinist. But in the second video that Matt reminded us of in the comments, they asked for an actual debate with the Muslim. And so they're willing to dialogue with the Muslim.
They're willing to have these things, but they're not with the Calvinist. Again, this is, I think, truly problematic when we consider them coming out of the gate in the first video and in the second video saying, oh, we're going to barbecue you.
We're going to throw smoke your way. And it's OK. Well, then again, it's getting really cold. I don't know. I can breathe. I can smell the flowers out here right now. There's no smoke. Let's have a formal actual debate where people can actually discuss, have rebuttal, have questioning, all those kind of things.
I think it would be good dialogue for everyone involved in those ways.
Yeah. Yeah, I absolutely agree. And if you ask me and I do say this with Christian charity, but I don't believe they have enough smoke to blow up a child's balloon. Anyways, I want to bring up. I mean, I do say that in Christian charity.
You know, I talk worse. So their argument. Well, one of the I believe it was JP. He called it the Calvinism killer, the book, the book. And correct me if I'm wrong, because I might get it wrong. But he said he said, if you know for sure that I was going to open this book, you had perfect knowledge that I was going to open this book.
Does that mean that you caused me to open the book? Something like that. If you know what he said better than the way I just explained it, please enlighten the audience. You've got to have a book in your hand to explain it.
OK.
I have to go back there to get one.
No, I'm just playing. I'll hold the book.
Well, there was two forms of it. The first one is basically he picks up a book and says, well, could I have not picked up the book? Basically, there could I have done otherwise argument. And if you say no, then he's going to say you're not free.
You know, and if you say yes, then he's going to say you're not determined. That's everything. So that's his first argument. And the second one was the one you're referring to, which is, is knowledge the same thing as determination?
And all of us here would say, no, they're not the same thing. But we just believe that at least as far as I understand it, God creating with his knowledge of what will happen from his creation is a creative decree.
And so it's his creation that based on his knowledge of what's going to happen, that produces everything in time, which is why it's a decree and not just knowledge. And so everything flows from that creative decree.
And so if you guys want my response, I would just say. You didn't create the book. You have no relation to it, whereas God is the creator of all things. So the only way for that to be a coherent argument is if God has nothing to do with anything, if God was not the creator.
Because it is true if I know what the results of a football game would be and I go back and watch the football game, I know what's going to happen, but I didn't determine them to do it. That's a true statement.
But I was not involved at all with any of the events in it, whereas God is the creator of the world and everything in it. And so that's just a blurring of the creator-creature distinction there.
And I tried to press him on that analogy. So first of all, any analogy.
I want you to give the answer that you said that night, and then if you want to go deeper, please do. But I thought you did well with that answer.
Thank you. So the question of did God predestine or did God know that I picked up this book? Could I have done something different or not? Is it all those kind of things? When he asked me the question, he said, if you were a prophet and you knew you had a prophecy that I was going to pick up this book, did your knowledge of it make it happen?
And I said, well, absolutely not. I'm a prophet. I'm not God. That was my first answer to it. So first of all, we need to have that different classification of human and God. If it's a prophet saying something, it's not that the prophet is making it happen.
He's foretelling of something that is God's decree, God's foretelling of a future event that demonstrates that he is the creator and sustainer and decreeer of all things. However, then when the question was again asked later on about did you, if you were God in that way, by knowing that this book was picked up, did you make it happen?
And the answer is yes. God did decree for you to pick up that book. However, then I responded and said, you can't just ask a one-way question on this. Did you want to pick up that book?
Did you have the choice when you chose to pick up that book to pick up that book? And the answer is yes, that you did choose these things. And so it comes down to, and I started to press him back on this question and it stopped because he knew where it was going.
He didn't have the answers for it. And then Colin in the second show pressed him more on it, didn't have great answers for it. And it ended up coming about that Matt even put in the comments that he asked the question when we were talking about God's foreknowledge, he said, is that what y 'all want?
You want me to answer? How can God know everything? And we all said, yes. How can God know everything, but not be the decreeer of those things? And he said, I don't know. So he didn't have an answer to these issues either.
And so the, the, the part that I was pressing him on was, could you do something other than pick up that book? If God's knowledge was that you were going to pick up that book. And he said, no. And then it immediately went somewhere else because you don't want to keep on going on on that.
Because the issue with that is, is that God's foreknowledge does not rest or depend upon him, us first doing the action for him to know that we are going to do that action. Because that would mean God's foreknowledge and attribute of God is dependent upon the creature rather than him being independent, having a satiety, him being God outside of his creation.
His foreknowledge and what John was just describing there, his foreknowledge rests in his decree. That's why he has foreknowledge and therefore he can be dependent. He can be independent. He can be dependent upon himself, a satiety in that.
Yeah. Yeah.
So what I want to touch on really tonight is foreknowledge and foreknowing. You know, the individual and how the two are not the same. And I think that they were conflating the two. So how does God know?
So in their view.
So. So.
So, John, you mentioned that they were. I guess we could say semi-Molinism.
It's hard.
Can we make up terms here?
So I would just say, probably just say Molinist.
That would be fine.
So a Molinist, correct me if I'm wrong, would say that God, when I think about Molinism, I think about Dr. Strange for some reason. He sees all these different ways that things could happen. And, you know, and he picks the best one.
And so God sees all the different events of, you know, of worlds that he could create. And he creates the one that has the best turnout for maybe less violence, which I hate to see the one that was more violent.
Less evil, more people worshiping him type of a thing.
So basically, God has to learn something. So God's knowledge is dependent upon outside information.
Do you agree with that?
Well, on Molinism, it would be that middle knowledge. It's that knowledge in between his natural and free knowledge. That middle knowledge is something that doesn't come from him. It's not from him, because if it was, then it wouldn't be middle.
It would be his, you know, his free knowledge of what he decrees.
But still, basically, God learns.
And it's the same thing, basically, that I see taking place with open theism and Arminianism. And I usually give a little illustration using a book when it comes to God's knowledge. You know, like my wife loves to read novels.
And so like there's three ways, in my opinion, that you can have the information in a book. One is you can open it and read word for word, page for page. If you're like my wife, she gets so upset as she's reading it.
She'll skip to the very back of the book and read how it ends. And then she'll go back and read. And now that she knows how it ends, her anxiety level isn't so high.
And so she learns something and then she goes back and she reads. Or you could be the author of the book.
So word for word, page for page. God doesn't know what's going to happen until it happens. Open theism. Starting something and then looking in the tunnels of time to see how things are going to end. And going back and covering things that way.
Arminianism. And Calvinism is, well, God wrote the book. And and so I think Calvinism gives God the highest level of knowledge.
Because we're not saying that that God is the inventor. I mean, the what's the word that I'm looking for now? I know some of y 'all may have a problem with this, but I don't have a problem with saying that God authors this author sin.
I don't think he is the initiator or the creator of sin.
You just deny the 1689 confession of faith in chapter three, paragraph one, where it says God is not the author of sin.
Well.
I think it would be how you want to.
How you define it.
Because those those individuals.
There's a lot in the confession that I would have said different because if you say that God didn't author it, then then I think you're you're putting yourself in a boat that that open theism.
And also Arminianism are in the same boat with you. God ordains all things. And he done so in eternity past. And my argument is, is he's not so he's not a puppet master, you know, moving my arms now. So he's not actively right now causing me to do things.
But he ordained everything that I did that I'm doing in eternity past. He doesn't have to have me on a string to make sure that I'm doing these things. But he has means put into place. You see what I'm saying?
And so to say that he doesn't author sin is saying that he didn't author the book. But what I'm saying is he's not what you would call morally culpable.
He's not making me do. These things are like the Bible when it talks about sin, it's breaking God's law.
Have you ever told a lie? You're a liar. You're stealing something.
You're a thief.
You have a little less. You're an adulterer.
So when we do these things, we're sinning.
And so God gave a law.
And so and I usually give this illustration in my house, like, like, I don't want my kids running through the house. And so there's a law in my house. Don't run. And you know what? I know they're going to run.
I know they're going to run. They're going to catch me out looking and run through the house. And when they do, they're breaking my law.
And so God gave a law. When we break it, we sin. And so how can we say, you know, actually agree with that part of the paragraph whenever it's clear that God gave a law? It's clear that Satan is God's devil.
Read Job.
God is the first cause. So, yeah, he, he, he caused he, he, he laid down the law. He established the law. The law is a reflection of his character. And so then to go against his law is sin. But he doesn't cause us to go against the law.
He can't cause us. He can't do something against his nature.
And that's where the or the predetermining all things come into place. Because he's not actively like I'm not actively. I don't actively tell my child, ready, set, go. They take off running and I punish them.
I don't know. So anyways, so for knowledge, how does God know? And so I would argue he knows because he's the author. He authored all things. Would you have any other feedback on for knowledge? How does God know?
Well, I would just say for for our view, like you said, it's it's according to his decree. And so his knowledge would flow from his decree. Whereas on their view, they just take it as a given. Right. He just knows all things.
And they don't really give an explanation as to how he can know that. And so that's where I think the grounding objection comes in. How can God know those things without a creative decree? Right. Like and that just doesn't seem to work.
And so for me, they just seem to take it as a given. It's just true. God just knows all things. But they wouldn't accept that from us.
They wouldn't accept us saying God just determines all things. They're expecting us to explain it. And so I think it's only fair of them to do the same thing. Explain how God can know what's ever to come to pass outside of a creative decree.
That's just my thoughts on it.
Right. Right.
No, yeah, that was absolutely right. They didn't have an answer for the questions that they were asking. But they were thinking that they were not satisfied with the answers that the Calvinists are giving.
And in my opinion, then they're not satisfied with what Scripture is teaching. We have to remember that God has sufficiently revealed himself to us. And he teaches in there that he decrees all things, that he's sovereign over all things.
And he doesn't need, and I think I said this on the show the other night, that he doesn't need us to defend who he is. We just get it. Tell me, can any of us in here tell the intimate relationship on how the virgin birth took place?
It's a miracle. I don't know.
It's a mystery. How could Christ impute us with his righteousness and also have my sin imputed to him? Tell me the intimate relationship of those things.
I don't know.
It's a miracle. It's a mystery.
Tell me how God has decreed all things, yet we are responsible for our actions and our sins that we freely choose to do.
It's a miracle. But the Bible teaches such a thing. And that's where we just have to draw clear lines in the sand. Not in the sand. We need to go to the rock and see the clear lines that have been laid out there for us, that this is the truth.
And stand there, not trying to make new lines in sand.
And I think that's what we—everyone, we need to go to Scripture. Like, we can dismiss whatever labels, whatever, and we need to have our starting point in Scripture. And we see very clearly that God determines all things.
And see very clearly that God has—requires obedience of us. And that, like, choose to say who you're going to serve. Or, like, repent. Like, there's a call for people to do things. And so we're responsible for our own decisions and for our own actions.
But God is still sovereign over everything. So we have these two things. How do they go together? I don't know. But they go together, because that's what Scripture says. And that has to be our starting point.
Because we can look at other things that I'm sure they would. Like the Trinity. God is three, but he's one. Okay, that doesn't make sense. That doesn't logically make sense. Is it three or is it one? But that's what Scripture teaches.
And so we have to start at Scripture. And so anything that we start getting away from Scripture and trying to— okay, no, God doesn't know everything or whatever, but provision, provisionalism. And try to make excuses and try to explain away certain things in Scripture.
No, just what Scripture says, we need to believe it. And then we can move on from there. And it's going to be a mystery. There's going to be things that are going to be a mystery for us.
So their argument, Rick, was that—and I think, I hope you might have seen this part. But their stance was that when it talks about God's decree in the Bible, it's only talking about certain events. So like David, the flood, Jesus, those things were the only decreed part.
How would you respond to something like that? When it's—that they're saying it's only these certain occasions, but not the entirety of the whole.
I just say like Avengers with Hulk to Loki's puny God. To have that view of God where he can't have—like that's a very low view of God. And that's not how God has described himself to be. Like, who are you, old man?
Well, let's read something of how God describes his knowledge. Isaiah 46. And I know they brought this up in—or someone brought this up in the debate.
I took them there. And they didn't address it or even read the text from what I can recall. They might have read it for a second, but they didn't address the—. And then it was funny because then they said that only Tim and I, Tim Jones, the other Calvinist, we were the only ones actually bringing up scripture.
I was like, yeah, that's the point. The Calvinist is trying to teach the scripture. But we wanted to go to Isaiah 46. We went to place an ax. I can't remember the certain chapter. But when they went to scripture, they went to Jeremiah 18.
Yeah, Acts 17. They went to Jeremiah 18 and 1 Corinthians 15, which I hope we get to later. But Isaiah 46.
Yeah, Isaiah 46 says, Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is no one like me. Right here, verse 10. Declaring the end from the beginning. From ancient times, things which have not been done, saying, My counsel will be established.
Let me say that again. My counsel will be established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure. Some translations will say purpose. Calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country.
Truly, I have spoken. Truly, I will bring it to pass. I have formed it. Surely, I will do it. But God.
This is like my favorite chapter in the Bible. This is the very first chapter I got to preach a sermon out of was this chapter.
Oh, man. That's a blessing.
Yeah, it was wonderful.
You did something. When you read that, you gave the context to it. And I want to open that up for you right now to do so without anyone interrupting you claiming they're on barbecue.
Yeah, so the book of Isaiah is the words of prophet Isaiah who lived in around 720 BC, I believe it was. And he's prophesying about events that are going to take place 100 to 200 years in the future from him.
So these are yet to happen occurrences. So Babylon has not came about in capturing Israel yet. Bel and Nebo have not been false gods within Israel because they haven't been taken captive yet. And so these are all future predictions.
And in this text, God is saying the false worship of Bel and Nebo is going to stop. That those false gods, all they did was stand there. And I want you to remember the things long ago. So maybe he's referring to the prophecy he's giving right here.
Maybe he's referring to all the other decreative events and the ways that he's revealed himself in the past. But regardless, he says, remember in the past, look and see what's happening now for the people that get taken in captivity.
And remember that what separates me from those false gods is I can tell you the future. I can tell you the past and that I have a purpose in all of those things. Even in the false worship of Nebo and Bel, what it's doing in here is it's showing the difference between a false god that doesn't have any authority or any power over anybody versus the God who is the creator, sustainer of all things, who has predestined all things.
That's what that text says, that he has declared the ends before the beginning. Like that's what separates the true one and only triune God, Yahweh, from all the other false gods, even of today. I would say the false god of Molinism and Provisionism and all these things, that's what separates him still is God's sovereignty.
But what about the book?
Oh man, you just threw so much smoke at me. I don't know how to respond to that right now.
But yeah, I've heard JP respond to that before, and his way out of it was when he says declaring the end from the beginning. He's saying he's just declaring the end from the beginning point. He's not declaring everything in between.
Right, and that was where I didn't even get to address him in bringing that up because that's when he went, he only declares specific things. But what is the context of what he's talking about in here?
Bell and Nebo stooping over the conquering of Babylon underneath the hand of Cyrus, or yeah, under the hand of Cyrus. And that's how it's going to be foretelling of a future typological event of Christ coming from the east, Jesus the Nazarene redeeming his captives that have been held in captivity underneath sin.
And so when he says declaring the ends before the beginning, he's referring to specifically the event of Babylon being destroyed, the false gods, and all these things are going to point to his, his, his decretive power and having purpose in them being taken captive.
Right, which goes into the book of Jeremiah and all those things. Yeah, we didn't get to any of this stuff because immediately when we went here, they, they wanted to go somewhere else and it was immediate interruption and no actual true dialogue in my opinion.
Yeah, I, I agree. I watched it and man, I, I love JP man, but I was cringing the entire time because it was, he, this is a MO for him. I don't mean any disrespect to him. I, I love JP, but it's, it just seems like that's where he thrives when he's able to control the conversation and to get away from the point in some regards.
So, oh, go ahead. Sorry. No, you're fine. I was just going to mention some 33, nine through 11, which I think expands on this. The psalmist says,. For he spoke and it was done. He commanded and stood fast.
The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations. He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever. The plans of his heart from generation to generation. There, it actually describes the content of his decree as from generation to generation, which is just to say all of eternity.
God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. And in that decree, he's nullifying our plans and our counsel to accomplish his plans and his counsel. There are all generations. And so when you see that decree mentioned, there's no exceptions expressed here.
It's expressly linked to every generation. And so does all mean all here? That's really where it gets to. The text says it's every generation. God is decreeing whatsoever comes to pass from every generation.
And that is his counsel and his plan in all of it.
Yeah. Yeah. So real quick, Danielle brought up the question concerning free will. I don't know if you are able to read that. Y 'all see it. OK, she says, my question to you would be since when did free.
Hold on. My screen just moved. OK, here we go. Since since when did free will not be a supernatural supernatural superpower of humanity? Let's see. Benevolence of the most. OK. Yes. So concerning the free will question, I think Genesis, like if you R .C. Sproul does a real good job when speaking of Joseph, but I don't think he takes it deep enough when he speaks of Joseph selling his brothers into slavery.
And then right here in Genesis chapter 50 verse 20, Joseph says to his brothers who are worried now that their father is dead, that Joseph is going to have them put to death. Joseph says in verse 20 of chapter 50, as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to do what has happened on this day to keep many people alive.
And so we all know the story of Joseph, his his his brothers sell him into slavery. Joseph becomes second in power of Egypt next to Pharaoh. But it basically ends there. I want to take you to Genesis chapter 15 real quick.
So go to Genesis chapter 15, because everything that happened to Joseph and that happened in Egypt all the way to to Moses bringing out the people, all of that was prophesied in chapter 15 of Genesis.
Let me see. If you see the where it starts, let me know before I say it as you're as you're looking there, I do want to just as you're about to read that, Jeff, let me just answer something that people are asking about.
So, no, there has not been an official debate set up. That's what we were hoping to set up. J .P. has currently thus far declined. If you guys know him and want to reach out to him and let him know that this is a conversation we're having and that we would be more than welcome and more than happy to have a moderated formal debate on open air theology, have him hit us up because we would love to make that happen.
Yes. So at the very beginning, we issued a challenge. We'll see what happens. So in Genesis chapter 15, beginning in verse 12, it says, now it happened that when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him.
Then God said to Abram, know for certain that your seed will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and they will be enslaved and mistreated for 400 years. But I will also judge the nation to whom they are enslaved.
And afterwards, they will come out with many possessions. So right here in chapter 15 prophesies what takes place when Moses goes into Egypt because a pharaoh had rose up that knew not Joseph. Right. So that's clearly what Genesis 15 is talking about.
Now, think about this. When you talk about free will, if man has libertarian free will, how did that prophecy come about? Because Joseph's brothers had to, listen to me, they had to sell him into slavery.
Pharaoh's wife had to accuse Joseph of basically sexually mistreating her for Joseph to go into prison. Pharaoh's cup bearer, was it Kate Baker? I can't remember, had to be thrown into prison for Joseph to interpret their dreams.
Right. And like all these things, these free will choices supposedly had to come about in order for Joseph to interpret the dream for Pharaoh and for him to be put into the highest power, second only to Pharaoh and for Joseph to lead in such a way when this famine was coming that would cause his brothers to come to Egypt seeking grain.
And then ultimately for them to move in and have a piece of property in Egypt and for a pharaoh to come after the death of Joseph would raise up that knows not Joseph and would enslave the Jewish people.
Like all these little free will choices all had to work out perfectly. And that does not work when it comes to prophecy. All that was prophesied. And if someone had, you know, just turned, you know, geared it just a little bit, none of that would have came to play.
But God has predetermined everything. So when it comes to free will, I like to say we have, I would say positional free will, right? It's probably something I've made up. It's kind of like if someone's in prison, they're in a prison cell.
I don't know how big prison cells are. I've never been to jail or prison, but let's say it's 10 by 10, right? So in this 10 by 10 area, you can do pushups, you can do jumping jacks, you can write a letter, you can draw a picture, you got a toilet, you can, you know, you know, there's certain things that you can do with your toilet, right?
But something that you cannot do is you cannot decide when you're going to eat, when you're going to shower, and something else you can't do. You can't just walk out and leave, right? So, so basically, you can only do, you know, like these little choices that you have.
Now, where that breaks down is what my dear friend, John here was talking about is compatibilism. And so all, all analogies will have their breaking point, right? And so where that analogy breaks down would be compatibilism, because, well, in one way, the warding or the guards are not, I mean, they're allowing them to do jumping jacks, they're allowing them to do pushups, but but they haven't predetermined that that's what they're going to do.
But, but where this analogy does work is that it shows you that there's certain things that they cannot do being in that prison cell being prisoners. And as the unbeliever, the unbeliever can keep the commandments, even to a T, which no one can.
I'm just trying to throw that out. Let's say an unbeliever was to keep the commandments to a T. That does not bring him to God. It does not salvificly save him. And that those good works in the eyes of God are filthy rags.
They're filthy rags. The unbeliever, who cannot keep the commandments either, but his good works are a pleasing aroma to God. Right? And so, so, so how is it that, that someone who is not in Christ can do good things, and someone who is in Christ do good things, but one of them is a pleasing aroma, and the other one is a stench of death, and it's because of Christ.
All right. The unbeliever is, is driven by the imagination of their mind, according to Ephesians chapter two. We're not saying that they're, they only do evil because they can do good, but the good deeds that they do in the sight of God is evil.
Right? Some translations will say it's a, it's, it's a filthy garment. When you, when you really dive into it, it's speaking about, let's say a person who has leprosy. They would clothe the person with leprosy in a white cloth.
Right? And at the end of the day, they would have to remove the white cloth and put another cloth on him. Well, that white cloth, when they would remove it, it would open scabs, and this white cloth would be full of blood, pulse, and it would have scabs on it.
And imagine if that man with leprosy was to take that rag and hold it up to God and say, look what I've done for you. That's the unbeliever keeping the commandments. That's what that is. It's filthy to God.
All right. The believer, the only way, reason why, when we do anything that's pleasing to God is because of Christ. It's not our doing good that's pleasing to God. It's what Christ did that's pleasing to God.
It's not even what we have done that's pleasing to God. It's what Christ has done. We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. And so our will, like my will is still in bondage because my will is to do the will of God.
My will is to do the will of God. The unbeliever's will is to do his own will, and it's to follow the imagination of his mind. And so to say that we have ultimate free will is to say that prophecy could never come true.
Yeah. It's just, it's possible that it won't. But even saying it's possible for God to be wrong would still be problematic because it's not even possible for God's knowledge to be wrong. That's what it means for him to be omniscient.
He infallibly knows all things. And so for me, I don't see how libertarian freedom is even coherent as its own concept when it comes to God's omniscience.
I don't think it can exist.
Where God is outside. He's on a whole other level of existence. He is existence itself. And so freedom trumps my freedom. I'm so free. I'm making whatever choices I want, I'm able to do, but it doesn't undo his freedom in that.
And if he wants me to do something, I'm going to do it. And the everyday choices I make, I'm freely choosing those things. But it's still, he's the one that's decreed those things, and he's the one that's ultimately over me and sovereign in those things.
Yeah. And so our argument would be that, just like you just said, and I said it earlier, but we got some new people chiming in, when he predetermined that it was in eternity past, right? So God is not puppet master, causing you to do these things at that moment.
Yeah. No, because that same thing, part of the creature creator distinction is time and space is part of creation. In the beginning, God created time. So he already predetermined, before he created time, he already determined what time would look like.
So he's outside of time. He's not looking through time. He's outside of it. And so it's something that, again, it's incomprehensible to beyond that.
Yeah, it's definitely a mystery. And I, for one, welcome mystery. So real quick, let's jump into, unless y 'all have another version I want to look at, but I want to look at the difference between foreknowledge and foreknowing someone.
Yeah. And that gets into, you know, there's the Greek word, you know, to know, agno. It's an intimate term of loving someone. It's the same word that the Septuagint uses in Genesis, where it says, Adam knew Eve, and the consequent was, he had a child with her, right?
And so it's a choice to enter into an intimate relationship with them. And so the difference between foreknowledge and foreknowing in that sense would be choosing to love someone beforehand, not just knowing who they would be, but choosing that person intimately.
And so that would be where I would see the distinction.
And I think a great example of that is seen in Matthew chapter 25 of how he separates the sheeps from the goats. And he tells the sheep, come and enter into, enter, I'm going to butcher the quote, enter the place that was prepared for you before the foundations of the world, right?
That I prepared for you before.
Do you even Bible, bro?
Look, I've got my Bible here. I'm going to read it for you. Matthew chapter 25, everybody let's turn there because I'm going to get smoke. If I misquote this, the point of this is that the sheep are said to have done these types of works, but they're entering into a place that was predetermined for them before any works ever happened.
And the goats are going to the place that was prepared for the demon, the devil and his angels. And they didn't do the works that God commanded them to do. But in, let's see here. All right, Matthew chapter 25, I'll just read verse 31 and on.
I won't read the entirety of this, but just to the point where he says, enter into the, the, the place I prepared for you. But when the son of man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he'll sit on his glorious throne and the nations will be gathered before him.
And he will separate them from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, come you who are blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom, which was prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
So this was something that was prepared for them before the actions ever even took place, which just, again, that shows God's sovereignty. It shows God's elect. It would also, because then it goes down the list of what they did that showed how they were sheep, how they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, all these kinds of things.
If somebody is having conditional salvation, like what you just said, John, about what JP has, I think that completely negates this. Jesus is saying, enter into the place that was prepared for you before the works were ever done.
And then you did these works that show that you were my sheep in this text. JP is saying that he can, from my line of logic, if I'm understanding him correctly, through my own free will, through my continual choosing of you, God, I get rewarded off of this, that I get to go into the place that was not prepared for me before the foundation of the world.
But that was something I received at the end of time. And I think that that shows a contradiction to scripture.
Yeah. So right here in Romans chapter 8, beginning in, let's start with verse 28. It says,. And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good. For those who are called according to his purpose, because those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers.
I want to stop right there just for a second. And so the firstborn among many brothers is speaking about the resurrection of Jesus, right? He is the first fruits. He rose from the grave bodily. There's going to come a day, the last day, which Braden was just speaking about the separation of the sheeps and the goats, where we're going to come from the grave bodily, right?
So he is the first fruit. And so the predestination is to be conformed into the image of the son, Jesus Christ, speaking of our resurrection. So our being truly conformed to his image would be when we are resurrected from the grave.
So before we read this last part, it says, For he foreknew those who he foreknew, he also predestined. So the foreknowledge here, like you were talking about intimately knowing, John, I would say that this takes place in election.
God chose to save a people and that people that he chose to save, Christ came and died for those people. He fulfills the purpose of the father. Now, if everyone is, and I'm talking everyone from Adam to the last person born and Jesus comes, if everyone is foreknown by God, guess what happens?
Everyone is conformed to the image of the son. Everyone. And so this foreknowledge here, those whom he foreknew cannot be everyone. It cannot be everyone. It has to be a certain, I don't want to say people group, like breaking it down, ethnicity, but a certain people, the bride of Christ.
And so let's finish reading real quick and then we'll comment on it. And those whom he predestined, he also called. And I would say this is the effectual call. And those whom he called, he also justified.
And those whom he justified, he also glorified. So that call there would be where the Holy Spirit applies the purpose, right? He applies the purpose. Once he applies the purpose, we're regenerated. We're born again.
He gives us faith to believe we're justified by faith made right with God. Those whom are justified will one day be glorified. Glorified here is speaking of our being conformed to the image of the son, the resurrection of the dead.
So let's, I kind of gave some commentary as I read it and let's all four tackle that real quick.
Yeah, well, in Romans 8, 29 to 30, as you pointed out, it's the same group in all five of those verbs, right? So everyone who he foreknows will be predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Right?
And this is a specific group of people because verse 33 describes them as God's elect. Right? And it's all about the us, the exact same group. And so who is it that God foreknows? It's his elect. He chooses his elect personally, individually, and it's those people who he predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies.
And that's basically what we're saying about predestination. That God has predestined the people for salvation. And I think Paul picks up on this in 2 Thessalonians 2, 13, where it says, but we should be thankful to God for you brethren, because God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification and belief in the truth.
And for this purpose, he called you through our gospel. Right? And so in that passage, it links our salvation to God choosing us. And so when you see that type of language, that's election. Right? That's predestination unto salvation.
And so that's my understanding.
Context. Context is king. Right? Even when they brought up the Jeremiah 18, 8, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 -4, those things are defeated in context of what's being spoken of in there. I brought up this text, Romans 8, 28 -30, when we were in the second video with them, and I was posing it to the Molinists in the room that Molinism, they had just brought up the idea of God seeing all possibilities but bringing about our actuality.
And so essentially, not that God learned because they wouldn't say that. Right? But that, which I don't know how they could say that, but that's what they would say.
I don't know how they could not say that.
I know, but that's what they would say. They would say, God knows all possibilities equally, but has brought about our actuality. But the issue with that is if all possibilities consist of everybody at some way and some level coming to know Christ at some point in that possibilities, the issue with that is then it would mean that God has to be a universalist, salvific God, because everybody, he foreknew everybody if that was the case.
And so this is speaking purely about God's elect, those that are decreed to be in Christ before the foundations of the world.
Yeah, we're not saying that God doesn't know everybody, right? Like he doesn't know the goats, right? He doesn't, you know, he doesn't, yeah, of course he knows the goats. We're talking about the foreknowledge, this intimate, distinct way of knowing someone, right?
Yeah, it is a relationship thing. That's where in Molinism, the idea that in other possibilities, let's say, let's say I wasn't a believer, right? In another possibility, I could have been a believer.
And so in that possibility, God foreknew me in a relationship way. And so then it comes back around to that issue of then God has to be a universalist God because he foreknew me in another possibility, right?
And so it's just the inconsistencies of Molinism that I'm drawing out of that. And foreknowledge is absolutely, my mind gets taken back to Matthew 7. Many will say to me, Lord, Lord, have we not done all these many mighty miracles in your name, cast out demons, prophesied?
And he'll say to them, depart from me, you workers of iniquity. I never knew you. It's not that Jesus doesn't know them as individuals, but that he does not have an intimate relationship with them. And that contradicts, in my opinion, even, again, that conditional salvation of...
I don't know what JP or any of these conditional salvations people would say about why those miracles and prophecies were taking place. But in my mind, it would be because they had faith and then they lost the faith, if that was the understanding of these things.
But Jesus says, I never knew you. I never had that relationship ever with you. I just don't currently know you. I never knew you. What were you going to say on that, Rick, on Romans 8?
Oh, just, it seems pretty clear cut to me. Jeff was talking about 29, how it's tied together with, well, it's not universal because not everyone conforms to the image of Christ. But I think on previous verse 28, and we know that all things work together for good to those who love God.
So does everybody love God? No, not everybody loves God. Who loves God? It's those who are called according to his purpose. So it's not universal. It's talked about there's a specific group of people that then he foreknew and he predestined to be conformed.
And it also mentions those who, you know, so if you look at it, it says all things work together for the good of those who... Hold on, excuse me. And we know that for those who love God. So right there is pointing out those who love God, like you just mentioned.
But 1 John tells us we love God because of what? He first loved us. He first loved us. Yeah. Like, like, come on now. And so the main thing that I wanted to focus on tonight, you know, like what it is that we're putting in Braden's pipe for him to smoke is, is, is foreknowledge, right?
So whenever we're saying foreknowledge, God foreknows because he is the author. Right. His foreknowledge comes from his decree of all things. And those whom he foreknows, this is something different. This is a group of people that that God looks, that God decided to save.
Right. Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If Jesus is plan B, then to quote Rick earlier, who was quoting a Marvel, a big green guy, he takes the guy, swings around, he says, puny God.
Right. If God has to learn information, then then we're saying that.
That that's a puny God. Well, maybe there's a bigger God.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who's the who? That reminds me of my arguments when I whenever I'm arguing with Mormons. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who's the God that this God worship? Yeah. Yeah. It just doesn't make any sense, man.
And like when I became a Calvinist, when I was first introduced to me, someone said, oh, well, so what does that mean? I said, oh, that just means that God predestined the socks that you're wearing. And I said, oh, I don't believe that.
And they said, well, you shouldn't. And then I was at a Bible study one day and someone was talking about predestination. I said, this is my exact words. I don't believe that crap. And this older gentleman said, I don't know why he started naming off a bunch of verses that had in there.
And I said, I don't know either. I'll look into it. And there was times when it would have me in a headlock and there was times where I thought I reversed it and got it in one. And but I really didn't.
And then finally, I just had to tap out. Right. I just had to say, you know what? There's so much that I don't know. I'm just going to submit to what the scriptures say and teach, say and teach. Right.
So I tapped out. And I became a Calvinist.
Yeah. Yeah. I think the sovereignty of God and yet God's sovereign over things like Calvinism. It's one of the hardest things to come to grips with because it requires humility because there's someone that has like we want to be our pride and our.
We want to we want to be the captain of our own ship. And so to give up the reins or not even up the reins, but to understand that we're actually not control, it takes some humility. But once you can swallow that pill and understand that truth, then it's super comforting that, OK, I'm not going to control.
It's not up to me to maintain my salvation, to have enough faith to please God. But no, he's in control. I'm I'm supposed to be obedient. And so but he's got me and he he won't.
He won't lose me. I want to echo what Rick just said and read paragraph seven of the 1689 chapter. Are you going to do that? Yep. I knew that you knew I was going to do it, but did I make you do it if I knew that you were going to do it?
Where's the book? Where's the book?
The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care so that those heeding the will of God revealed in his word and obeying him may be assured of their eternal election.
And so I'll pause there and just say and echo what Rick just said, that this this causes. So much assurance in what Christ has accomplished at the cross, because we know that our salvation, our everlasting life is not in our hands, not in my if my hand was my faith, it's not it's not in my hand.
It's in God's hand. The faith I have is a gift from God. It's in his hand. So their eternal election by the certainty of their effectual calling in this way, this doctrine will give reason for praise, reverence and admiration of God, as well as humility, diligence and rich comfort to all who sincerely obey the gospel.
And I, I can testify to that just as much as Rick can testify to that, right? Because that's a that's a reality in our lives that I have so much praise, reverence and awe and humility towards this subject because of what God has revealed in his word.
And Rick being my co-elder at church, we just saw a gentleman come to this realization who was in turmoil over some things. And then he realized this and immediately he said, I don't even remember how he exactly worded it, but it was very much similar to, in my opinion, like how Luther would say the gates open when he realized this with with God's grace that he was saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
He said that this has been something that has just been on his mind, a chain, and now he is freed from it. He just praises God over it. It was a remarkable night when he said something like that. So that's what this doctrine should cause for us.
Why? Because it's scriptural. Why? Because God's word says so.
Any other closing comments concerning that? There's no way to cover everything. So I thought we'd just focus in on those two things. Whenever the conversation first started, I really thought they were going to be speaking about predestination.
But like concerning the believer, our human beings, the concern of soteriology. But it turned into the God predestined me to wear these socks. Right. To bring it.
Going to the bathroom.
Did he predestine that time I had diarrhea? It was definitely not where it should have been. In order for me to convince you of the big things in our life, I tell this to people all the time. In order for me to obey the big commandments, I need to start by obeying the little commandments.
I don't know where y 'all stand on head coverings. It is what it is. But the Bible says that the man should not cover his head. I don't wear a hat in church.
Okay.
Now, if you do, that's fine. But for me, I don't wear it. And I really want to because I'm starting to lose it up here. And so, for me, I see in order for me to obey the small thing, I mean, the big things, I need to start by obeying the little things.
And so, whenever it comes, does your wife wear a hat? My wife does cover.
Yes. Yes.
But this isn't a head covering thing. I'm just trying to bring it into perspective. In order to obey the big things, I must first obey the small things. And that actually made me forget where I was going.
Crap.
Well, one thing that I kind of wanted to touch on, if you guys don't mind.
No, please.
His statement about how he believes God determines some things, but not all things, and how he is at the same time an incompatibilist. He denies compatibilism. And so, I'm not sure how that works. Because if you go to Acts chapter 4, where you have an explicit case where he would grant that God did determine the crucifixion.
He doesn't grant that God determined everything else, of course. But he does grant that God decreed the crucifixion.
Right?
But if determinism and freedom are incompatible, then that would seem to negate the freedom of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews, and the Gentiles. Even on his view. And so, why in Acts chapter 2, does Peter look to the crowd and say, you crucified the Messiah.
Why are they culpable for their actions when they were determined to do what they did?
Because they believe that those are incompatible.
Yeah, yeah.
And that's where I was going to go with it. I'm glad you brought that up. Because I thought that the debate was going to be on salvation, predestination, concern, and salvation. But it ended up being concerning the little things.
And for me, in order to convince someone that God has predetermined the little things, I must first show them from the text that He predestined salvation for those whom He foreknew.
And so, that's where it should have begun. It should have begun dealing with salvation. And then later on, the other little stuff that they were rambling about versus trying to convince. Like, Brayden, there's no way that you can get on that podcast and convince them that God caused you.
Remember that day that you was on your way to church and you fell?
What are you talking about? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That was a great day. Yeah, that was a great day. Now, do you believe that was predetermined?
Thanks for bringing that up again, Jeff.
Do you believe that was predetermined?
We have the video of that somewhere, don't we?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I do.
But in order to convince someone of that, in order to convince someone of that, I need to first show them how He's sovereign in salvation. So that's why I was giving the little illustration of me obeying commandments.
I need to start somewhere to get to the big ones. I need to start. I need to obey the little things. If I don't obey the little things, I'm not going to obey the big things. If I don't believe that God is sovereign over salvation, I'm not going to believe that He's sovereign over everything in this kingdom.
Yeah, and if He's able to do, if He's sovereign over the big things and not the little things, why not the little things?
What reason? They need to bring an argument because is it that He's unable to?
No.
Then that's, again, a puny God. And so where, okay, where from Scripture does it say that God gives us free reign over little things, but He does the big things? And it doesn't. And just from what I saw of the debate, the main argumentation wasn't actually like arguments from Scripture that they even mentioned.
You guys are the only ones that are using Scripture. But it was like emotional manipulation and going to like, oh, does God decide when I'm going to go to the bathroom? Oh, that's ridiculous. I'm just trying to make you feel like embarrassed by even thinking of that.
But it wasn't actually an argument. It was just trying to, oh, yeah, that's ridiculous. Okay, we won't, clearly, but it wasn't using logic or Scripture.
Yeah, no, it was trying to build up emotional arguments. Which I'm happy that you bring that up, though, John, from Acts chapter 4. Because, and with what Rick just said there, God only predestines the big things.
Well, God brings about the big things through very small little predestination events. Very, very much so. And the idea that we have to make it so that God didn't predestine something so that we can protect Him from being culpable of sin.
Like that's the idea that we can protect His character because we can bolster this idea of free will. Well, so is it always would it be wrong for God to predestine sin? And most of the time, would it be wrong for God to predestine you to punch this person or to lift up a book like how they were using in those analogies?
They're going to say, well, yeah, it would be. Well, but He also predestined this sin with Jesus being crucified. So God isn't culpable for the crucifixion. We would never put the sin of crucifying the Son, Jesus Christ, upon the shoulders of our mighty God.
That was sin.
God never transgressed anybody when He predestined for that to take place. Likewise, and then, like you say, then you look down. One of the greatest examples, I think, in Scripture of little things bringing about big things, and they even brought it up as an example, was David.
Well, David was a decreed person to sit on the throne. Do you know how many little evil, evil things took place for David to come about upon that throne? I'm saying even before he was a thought in his parents' eyes.
Ruth, the Moabite woman, was in a pagan nation who was met by a Israelite who ran away from the land, sinning against God, forgoing a nation that didn't have a king set up upon it because they said, we don't want a king.
We're going to let the judges rule over us. And so all these sins go on. He goes and meets Ruth. That Israelite dies. Death happens. Sadness. Heartbroke happens. And Ruth goes back to a nation. And then the Scripture says that she just happened upon the land of Boaz.
And it is through Boaz and Ruth, the sovereign plan that takes place, that David comes about. And so you can't say God decreed only David, right? Because how many little free will choices that involved intimate sin and culpability to the actual human doing those things that brought about Ruth, that brought about Boaz, that brought about the field, that brought about David.
It's the story of the Bible. It's the story of the Bible, man. It's the same thing we pointed out in Genesis. I also want to point out what Eric just said, that there was a big foot siding.
Get out of here.
Look, man, I didn't make this up. Eric brought this to me.
That's just your alternative account.
I know.
I mean, I think God predetermined that too. So it is what it is. Thank you. Thank you, Eric. Thank you.
And I do want to say it for a closing thing on my side before. And I'll let you guys speak too. I apologize for taking up the last couple minutes here. But I think this ultimately comes down to bad hermeneutics in the scripture, right?
Especially in the cases where it is speaking. Because we have to remember that these authors of the Bible did not know all things. God knows all things. And so when an author is speaking, in the case of 1 Corinthians 15, where he says, You believed in vain.
This is from a human that doesn't know ultimately where somebody is going to end up in salvation. And so there's going to be times where you have to take that into an account. And so when there's scripture that seems to contradict, God has decreed all things.
What we have to do is we have to take a total scripture of view and say, Okay, this scripture says God decrees things. This one says He decrees all things. This one says He has a purpose in all things.
But yet this verse says that they believed in vain. This verse says that they fell from grace. This verse says this, this, this, this. They have to work together. They don't contradict each other. And which one takes precedent?
Well, first of all, the clear helps us interpret the unclear. And God's sovereignty is very, very clear. And when it comes to these other verses, you have to take into account that it's speaking about a human speaking to another human who ultimately doesn't know if they have true faith in Christ.
And so you have to take all those things into account. But when Yahweh speaks in Isaiah 46 and says, I decreed the end before the beginning, that is Yahweh speaking in there. That's the author of Isaiah 46 when he says those things.
And so it's just it's bad hermeneutics when somebody comes walking away from scripture, bolstering free will above God's sovereignty. I do believe that we have a will that is bound by our nature, which is hating God, works of unrighteousness, that which is spiritually blinded and does not accept the things of God.
And we are by nature hostile towards God, dead in our sins. Those are part of my nature. But it is through God's working, God's decree of the Holy Spirit, even birthing me again that now I can profess Christ and have faith in him.
And he just like how he first saved me in that years ago, he still saves me today in that same exact way is that he's holding me securely in his sovereign hand.
Well, all right, gentlemen, if anyone's got any last words, speak now. Hold on real quick. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the conference coming up in February, the Why Calvinism Conference. The pre-conference will be on the 21st, and the pre-conference is going to be on the dangers of full preterism.
If you're interested in knowing about that subject and why it's dangerous, I would encourage you to get a ticket for that. But also the 22nd through the 24th, we will have the Why Calvinism Conference.
We're going to be explaining why Calvinism is important. Why should a church adopt Calvinism? So we're going to be looking at it from those lenses. And we're also going to be filming on site a documentary concerning those same questions.
And there will also be a debate on Calvinism also. So if you haven't got your ticket, go to openairtheology .com, purchase your ticket. Make sure that you're here for this event. We got speakers traveling all from all over, and it's going to be exciting.
It's going to be a lot of fun at the conference, but also in the after parties that we're going to be having, right? We're going to be renting out a cigar shop, and it's going to be really good. We're going to try to get a restaurant to where we can gather, eat food.
They got a stage, and we plan on having a time to where we can sing psalms and hymns together. So if you're interested in something like this, go to openairtheology .com and purchase your tickets today.
Now, if y 'all have any last words.
Well, I'll just say I love JP. I really, really do love him. I just think that, unfortunately, he's gotten to a point where he's in this very hostile type of arguing style that he has almost lost the capacity to hear what we're saying.
It's like this vitriol is all over his brain to the degree that whenever we say something, it's filtered through everything he thinks we're saying, right? And so the book shows we're just incoherent, right?
Instead of what is it we're actually saying, what is our position? And that's unfortunately where he has fallen short. I love him, but that's where he's unfortunately gone wrong.
Yeah, let's also make another appeal to him, JP, and your friend. The reason why we want a public moderated debate is so there will not be any talking over. We won't have to worry about you guys talking over us, and you won't have to worry about us talking over you.
There'll be a proposition. We'll be able to lay out our proposition, our rebuttals, and ask questions and receive questions from those that are watching. And I think it's the fair way to do so. And again, we challenge you to a debate, right?
And if you truly believe in your position, then take the debate. We would do this in Christian charity. None of us on here said that you wasn't truly in Christ. I would not say that. I would not attempt to blaspheme the Holy Spirit in that way.
But, I mean, we really have a hard time not throwing a block up when someone's swinging at us, right? And so we feel like y 'all are swinging at us, and we're saying, let's do it. And so it's up to you to respond, my friend.
And with that, I guess we'll close, unless, Rick, you have something you want to say?
I don't really have anything to say. We can talk about Bigfoot.
I really want to talk about Bigfoot, but I also got to finish studying. I got a sermon I ain't done with yet. But you know my opinion, right? If you host the evidence of two or three witnesses, then you have to say that there's a Bigfoot.
I mean, there's a witness today, right? There's thousands of witnesses. So I don't want to hear it, man. I'm a little shaky. I don't want to say you're not a brother, but you're not really doing your deed, right?
You're not obeying the little things, right? How are you going to obey the big things coming up? Anyway, with that said, I'm going to end it there.
Bigfoot's real. Hallelujah. Hallelujah.
All right.
That's a wrap.
