Open Discussion on Reformed Theology

All right, so it's seven minutes to six and

I'm doing a video here because I was involved in a

discussion in a room and a

bunch of people were snotting on Calvinism and misrepresenting it and stuff

like that.

And it was pretty typical.

And so what I've done before is offered people the opportunity to have a real discussion

about it.

And so people express some interest and I was supposed to actually produce

the link here and do it.

And I'm talking as I'm figuring this out.

Hi, Nina.

And so on that link on Facebook, I got to put it up on,

let's see, put it up on another, yeah, here we go, here we go.

So, wow, a lot of comments.

Okay, there we go.

And we'll see if people come in.

There's three watching.

Oh, 18, 20 watching.

Hey, Brian.

And so on that link is, if you want to come into the StreamYard room and actually have a discussion,

you're welcome to.

And if not, that's okay.

You don't have to.

We got different people on different areas who said that they hated

Calvinism and stuff like that and misrepresented it, which is pretty typical.

So I am opening up a room and talking, filling in

the time until, hopefully we get enough people in here we can blab.

We'll see.

We'll see what happens.

So how's everybody doing in the room?

Hope you guys are having a good time.

And how many of you, let's see, how many are Calvinists?

How many are non -Calvinists?

How many don't even know what it really refers to and don't care?

You can type it in and let me know.

And wow,

I just, some of the things people say when they read comments.

And let's see.

I'm looking through stuff.

I read a lot of comments from people and I'll tell you, sometimes it's, they're supposed to be

Christians and okay, carrying around the fence.

You can come on in and ask questions.

We can have a discussion.

We put the link in.

This is the link to come straight into StreamYard.

You would need a microphone to talk.

If you don't have one, it won't really do you any good.

You can use a camera if you have a camera, but if not, you don't have to have a camera on.

Your closet Calvinist, Nate says, and Rob Barnhart, Lutheran, all right.

I went to a Lutheran college.

Is believing in Calvinism a salvation issue?

No, you don't have to believe in Calvinism to be saved.

Since the day the Lord saved me, 2 to 2010, came out of Orthodoxy or Syrian Orthodoxy.

Interesting, good for you.

If you're going to the humanist factor of free will in John 6, 63, 65, that's true.

That is true.

Okay, well, let's see if I can.

I'm trying to find, I don't even know where it was.

I mean, I'm looking, okay, let me say this again.

I'm looking at the discussion

that manifested, but I don't even know which group

it was, which Facebook page it was, because it's not showing me.

Reform usually has a lot of, has at least a belief in the doctrine of grace.

Oh, we've got a big doctrine of grace thing.

And then, so I'm reading some of the comments,

and look at this, Kevin Thompson says, sadly, many believers don't realize what a

seriously disruptive issue Calvinism is till it strikes near them.

Oh boy, look at that.

Let's see what a reply is.

Amen, I've seen it.

Uh -huh, I lean towards a reform view, another person says, but I listen to the body of Christ as a

whole, because I don't think Calvinism is the entire picture of the faith, okay.

Scary parallelism with Islam.

No love of God for all mankind.

Wow, that's not an accurate representation.

That's the thing that gets me, is so many people who are Christians who misrepresent what

Calvinism is, and you'd think that they would be interested in being corrected.

Say, no, that's not what we teach.

Yes, it is.

It's like the guy was debating on oneness a couple of weeks ago, Tracy

Turbeville, and I said, no, that's not what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and he said, yes, it is.

I said, no, it's not three gods.

And he says, look, Matt, he says, I know more about what you believe than you do.

And I remember that.

I was like, man, that is really something.

So Calvinists refute the, to face this, refuse, oh, refuse to face this.

It's got me beat where they get their assurance of salvation from.

How do they know they're one of the elect?

Because they believe.

Do you see, they think they got these great questions that really get us, but they don't.

How do you know you're elect?

Because you believe.

That's because God gives, grants faith to the believers.

True belief, true faith, true belief.

Linda, how are you?

Now, if you don't know Linda, I don't know if you can hear me, but

you'll have to look down at the bottom of the screen on the window there, and I believe it'll

say cam and mic or cam slash mic, and you can play with that.

And also sometimes, just so you know, on your browser, you have to grant

permission, and there's a trick a lot of people don't know about.

And I'm gonna share the screen and show you a trick that a lot of people, it'll help a lot of people, okay?

So let's see if I can do this without causing it to

infinitely repeat itself.

Yeah, there it goes.

It doesn't matter.

So look, right up here, right?

I'm just putting my mouse up here and clicking on it.

And that's what comes up.

See, it says camera, microphone, you can allow.

So you just click on that lock, and that's one of the ways, okay?

It's one of the ways to, there we go.

There we go.

One of the ways to make sure that works, okay.

What's up, Matt?

What's up, Matt?

Hey, Rob, how are you?

Good, good, good.

So since you wanna have an open discussion about Reformed theology, I have a question

to try to let you kind of figure it out, because

you played a big role in my life of faith over the years.

Wow, okay.

So you're kind of one of the few people that kind of, you're not quite Presbyterian, but not quite

Baptist, but you're Reformed.

So I guess like where I think some people get frustrated, at

least when we're discussing Reformed, is that could be, have a broad meaning, and it can have a very narrow

meaning.

So like the WCF and the 1689 Baptist Confession

can usually kind of define things down in a confessional sense of what Reformed might mean to those two groups.

But there could be a lot of other people who consider themselves Reformed believers,

and not necessarily be tied down to those specific confessions.

Because I've been listening to you a long, long time, so I think sometimes you depart from

the WCF on a few issues.

Yes, I do.

So how would you have like a defining definition

of what it is to be Reformed?

Oh, just five points, just the five points, Tulip.

So you don't make the distinction that that would be more of a form of Calvinism, and that

some people say that in order to be considered Reformed, you have to hold to one of the confessions.

Well, I have a knee -jerk reaction to adhering to confessions.

Yeah, it's just the way I was raised, I guess.

I don't follow the crowd, and I moved 40 times, 26 before I was 12.

And I learned to become independent.

Not to say it's good or bad, but people say to me, do you affirm the confession, the so -and -so confession?

That's what you gotta confirm.

And I look at them, I'm like, is this a requirement that I have to be in your church to confirm to that particular

confession?

If they say yes, and I'm not interested in dealing with them very much because they kind of relate

that confession, whatever it might be, particular one, to the truth.

And when I was in seminary, get this, I would come to school.

This is Westminster Theological Seminary, Calvinist Seminary.

I would come to school, my hair spiked, and a mod kind of a jacket, and I'd listen to Striper, a heavy metal

Christian band on the way up the hill.

And I would come into class, you know, we'd go to lunch, I'd come into class late because I'd be talking to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

And I'd ask questions.

You know, out here, I was on the street, I was talking to someone.

No one else did this because they were, in my opinion, to some degree, cookie cutters.

I didn't fit the mold.

And one time at the bookstore, these two guys who were

twins, and they wrote in block letters, remember that.

And they started rebuking me for not following all the reform perspectives.

And they were doubting my Christianity because I would listen to heavy metal,.

You know, like Christian heavy metal.

Yeah, I'm familiar with that form of argumentation.

I've listened to metal for most of my life, so.

Yeah, I like it.

You know, I like corn and stuff like that.

And so at any rate, somebody else, I'm kind of dragging this out too long.

Somebody else just didn't go there, was in the bookstore, heard this, and just got all over these guys, said, yeah, you can't do that.

So anyway, this was kind of the introduction I had to a lot of this idea of reform stuff.

You gotta believe this, you gotta believe that.

I just don't go with that.

I don't like signing a document saying, yeah, I affirm all this and that, this confession, that confession, because it's too pigeonholed in some

areas.

I want to go with what the word of God says.

That's what I hold to, is the word of God.

So I didn't answer your question very well,.

But kind of rambled.

No, that's fine.

What do you think about like some of the reformed believers

in the past considering Amaraldians to be a class of reformed believers, even though that they don't

hold to hell and Atula?

Right, and they're reformed -ish, but not really reformed.

They're Amaraldian.

That's why they have a word for it.

Yeah.

That's what I say.

Okay, well, I'm just trying to figure out like in order to have a conversation like

how somebody would even try to have a conversation, because I know, I don't know if you've ever watched Dr. Jordan Cooper,

but usually he has to kind of caveat everything he says when he discusses the reform, because if he starts

talking about what reformed believe, like usually separate groups kind of complain that you're not

really being accurate, and that's because there could be a wide group of

beliefs on certain issues.

So like, I guess my question is like, do you ever

struggle with the idea that from your understanding of what reform means would lead

to kind of a lack of unity in every area?

Nah, no, I believe that those people who are reformed in their basics and then differ on the adiaphora

are disobeying Romans 14.

Romans 14, one through 12 says that you're not passed judgment on your brother's debatable issues.

And so I bring this up to people and say, look, I believe in infant baptism, not for salvation.

I believe in the continuation of the gifts, but I don't deny the sufficiency of scripture.

So why can't you fellowship with me?

Oh, I'm sorry, you can't hold to that.

We're not gonna be able to fellowship.

I've had people do that.

And I say, you're making judgments in violation of Romans 14.

And what they're doing is raising these kinds of issues of the issues of the essentials of the faith.

And you can't do that.

They can't justify it.

So they're the ones who are doing the unnecessary and ungodly division.

I'm not, I'm saying we have the right to disagree.

Let's agree or disagree well, politely, and show the unbelievers that our love is for

Jesus.

And in this case, reformed theology in the basics.

And we can disagree on the particular nuances of some adiaphora.

But too many of them don't want to.

Those are the ones I usually associate with the idea of, do you hold to this confession?

Those are the ones that are, okay, we're done talking, because they don't have much empathy.

No, no, that makes sense.

I was just trying to give you an opportunity kind of to find out like what that is, because I mean,

I've been listening to you for a long time.

So I kind of know what your positions are on things and stuff like that.

But other people, they kind of have different ideas of what reformed, and they might have arguments.

And I didn't want to see like, I, when I try to talk to my reformed brothers, sometimes

I get a lot of pushback of like, well, that's not what I believe.

And I'm like, well, I'm trying to get to the main points of reformed doctrine as

often as I can.

But sometimes I, it feels like, I think from being over in

a certain group, I see that this is the result of people feeling that reformed

believers try to always hide behind the fact that you don't understand our position.

It's because there's so many positions on certain topics that they feel like there is no

uniform position on things.

That's just it, they don't have to.

You know, I went to a Lutheran college, Presbyterian seminary, went to a Baptist church.

I was baptized by Chuck Smith from Calvary Chapel.

And I know that God casts his net further than we do.

I also know that the enemy of the gospel wants us to be so divided on particulars that we won't be unified in the

essentials.

And that is, I believe is unbiblical.

You know, I've often talked about writing a book called Romans 14, the forgotten chapter.

Now I'm definitely reformed, but I can tell you that some of my reformed brothers and sisters, they have their head

stuffed in a dark place and they don't wanna just let loose and be gracious and be

kind.

And we find people in reformed camps, we find people in Arminian camps who are like that as well.

So they're the ones who cause disunity, not me.

I say, no, let's go, let's talk, you know?

Let's just get along and go preach and teach, so.

I don't know if this is quite on topic, but this is kind of a question I have in mind.

I've been wanting to ask.

So since you're here, I figured I'd ask you, what about the debate within reformed circles

about CRT and things of this matter?

Like, when do you think it would be, I don't seem to think, I don't seem to see any

time where some of the people who really care about this issue, except on one particular side, which

is usually from the pro -CRT position, kind of questioning each other's salvation.

Seems that a lot of people who are on the other side kind of naturally assume that they're still

a Christian brother.

I guess I struggle to understand that because in a sense, they're kind of denying certain truths of

Jesus's death on the cross and how we are all one race, and they're

preoccupied by a lot of other things.

And I guess I would start to kind of really question their regenerate state, depending

on how they argue.

And I don't see a lot of that on the anti -CRT

crowd.

And I was just wondering what your position on that is and whether or not you would view that as -.

It's a multifaceted question,.

So you gotta simple it down to one question.

Okay, would you view somebody being pro -CRT, no matter what their position on, no matter what their arguments are,

would you say that that's an essential or would you say that's a non -essential?

CRT, critical race theory?

Yes.

I'm surprised that you're asking the question.

Is CRT an essential doctrine?

Well, no, I'm saying like, if I believe in CRT, basically I'm asking, would

you say that that person, would you question that person's confession or would you consider them a brother?

No, I would ask.

I would say, well, what do you think CRT is?

I always have to find out more.

You always have to find out, what are they teaching?

What do they mean by something?

A lot of times people just have bad ideas about stuff.

And so I have to find out, you know?

So what do you think critical race theory is?

Well, it can depend on the person, but basically it's basically that

the African -American and other minorities cannot usually be included in this group

and they have been, America has systematically oppressed them in various ways.

Is it true?

In some senses, yes.

In some senses, no.

It's in some senses, absolutely, yes.

Many of the blacks were oppressed, mistreated,

you know, killed, tortured, all kinds of stuff at the hands of white people.

Absolutely, it's true.

Also, it's also true that many blacks owned blacks in the 1800s.

And it's also true that many whites owned whites in the 1800s.

And this kind of slavery is not talked about.

The thing is that bitterness or anger leads, how's it work?

Bitterness leads to anger, anger leads to murder.

Resentment, bitterness.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

I'm sorry?

I'm sorry, I was quoting Yoda.

What I'm saying is that what we need to do with CRT is realize that it is being

used by the left in order to oppress other people.

And what they wanna say is that the oppression of this group of people in the past was wrong.

So now let's do this to the group of people who were the oppressors.

I never oppressed anybody.

Yeah, that would be Ibrahim X. Kendi's particular position on that, the things.

In order to square up past injustices, we must commit injustices now in order to

balance the scale.

Right, and that's an injustice in itself.

So if you can see the screen, make 1984 fiction again.

And if you've read the novel, 1984, but you absolutely need to.

But one of the things that's happening in our country is with the Communist Manifesto is being implemented by the left, the radical

left, rules for radicals.

What they're doing is they are setting people against each other.

And when they set people against each other, then division causes and energy is being put into that, resentment and hatred.

And then the people who are in power, the oligarchy, will then use that as a means to gain more power by restricting other people's freedom.

And this is exactly what's happening.

So I have daughters and two of them have said that they are attracted to black guys.

I'm like, okay, I don't care.

Whatever, it doesn't bother me.

I don't care as long as they're good people.

That's all I care.

And that's how I am.

So, and people say, well, you know, whites have benefited a whole bunch.

Really?

I'm almost 65 years old.

I'm still having to work 40 to 60 hour weeks to keep up with what I got to do.

I've had to go into debt in order to get education.

I've had to bite the bullet on so many things.

My wife has too.

Where's our white privilege?

And yet they'll say, see, this stuff is keeping the blacks down, as an example, or the Hispanics or whoever, whatever.

And I can tell you, I've got a lot of experience in Southern California where the Hispanics were running rampant and illegal.

And the way that people bend over to help them out and how the government bends over to help them out.

You have, Puedo hablar espanol porque fue necesario que hablo, lo porque yo vivo en Southern California.

So you say, I had to learn how to speak Spanish sufficiently to get around and do various jobs from Southern California.

So, you know, the CRT thing is really kind of an annoyance because it's being used by the

left to oppress people.

And that's I mean, to where I start to really get concerned and I start to

wonder whether or not the person I'm talking to is regenerate or not.

Is the leaving loud particular issue where we are now actively

calling for people to divide from the body of Christ.

And -.

That's right, that's right.

And, you know, it was,

you know, I studied church history a lot.

Dr. James White kind of inspired my geekery on that one.

And there's actually a church heresy that kind

of resembles CRT pretty closely.

Really?

I don't know if -.

Novationism.

Really?

The idea is essentially that if I offer the goods to

the Roman gods in order to, you know, be seen and

not be killed, there became a debate about whether or not I can still come to

communion or not, right?

No, no, you can't.

And so - If you offer anything to a pagan god, you can't come to communion.

So some people were strongly against this and some people started to kind of welcome people

without repentance to communion.

No, no, no.

And then Ambrose and a few others kind of said, no, no, no, no.

Like, no, no, no.

Like, we're not just gonna give communion to anybody.

They actually have to show elements of repentance.

Well, then there's a guy named Novation who said, no, no, there is no forgiveness for people who do this, period.

They never -.

No, that's not true.

That's not true.

And Novation didn't know he was talking about in that respect.

Yeah, well, that's why it's a heresy.

But what I see is elements of this in CRT, which is the great sin of racism,

which by the way, everybody on the screen is racist by this definition.

It's never can be forgiven.

It can never be absolved.

You just are, right?

Like -.

Right, you are because of your racism.

And there is no forgiveness for this.

So this would be a form of Novationism.

And what's interesting about the Novationists is eventually they've formulated their own churches

under these ideas.

And Leaving Loud is exactly part of that, is that we're gonna go

form our own churches that exclusively believe what we believe and is

even our own race, only pretty much our own race, or unless you wanna signify

that you believe what we say exactly as we say it, you could come along too, but just know you're racist.

So I see elements of this heresy in CRT.

It's kind of interesting.

That's where I start to have a problem with it.

But I would just try to get a feel for like, you know, I know what you mean by essentials.

I was just curious if you would view that as touching on any essentials.

No, no, no, no.

It's just an issue of sin.

People are gonna adhere to something like that.

The essentials are something the scriptures have said are essentials.

And stop.

So let me ask you, are you Reformed?

No, I'm Lutheran.

You would not consider me to be Reformed.

Okay.

LCMS, ELCA, what?

Wells, a particularly weird -.

Wisconsin?

Yeah, Wisconsin, Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

Wow.

Oh, ELC.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Look, okay, hold on real fast.

Lion of Judah, I'm waiting for you to get in, says devices not connected, which means you're trying to get in,

but you don't have an audio thing set up.

And I can, if you type stuff in, I can walk you through.

I used to be a computer tech.

So one of the things - Sometimes you have to allow those things to be on.

When you first opened StreamYard, for me, I have to allow the microphone and the camera and stuff like that to turn on,

or else it will say that.

Right, and the way to do that, there's two main ways.

One is on the screen at the bottom.

I think that the people who come in can see the cam mic option on the bottom.

If not, on your lock at the top of your screen, you can click on that

lock where you type in www.

There's a lock next to it.

Just click on it once and it will open up and you can then allow

and stuff like that.

I did not know that one.

That's a neat little trick.

Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate you answering my questions.

It was just, I guess what my thing is as being a Lutheran, like it's a little bit easier to kind of understand like

what a Lutheran believes because generally speaking, we have to confess the Book of Concord.

And so there is not too often an issue where you could run into somebody who's claiming to be a

Lutheran and believes a lot of different things than I do.

And so like when we're having a discussion about Reformed Theology, I usually have to

understand what that particular person's persuasion of Reformed Theology is.

You have to ask questions.

So have you ever heard of Rod Rosenblatt?

Yep, at 15.

He was my professor in college, Lutheran College.

Just so you know.

All right, anybody else want to blab?

Rob, Josh, little me.

Let's see.

I have a question about the unconditional election stuff.

Okay.

Just, so the Bible says that God,

just, I'm just reading here.

So you have not chosen me, I have chosen you and God also

decides who to attract to him or draw to him.

Is that, is there any basis for

that to be, done on or like, is that, can we understand or justify that?

Or is that something that's just purely for God's will, from God's will?

Or is it something that he has like predetermined based on his foreknowledge of the future?

Like, I'm just, I'm not exactly sure how that's meant to work.

How unconditional election works?

It's not based on anything foreseen in an individual because that would be showing favoritism.

That would be implying that there's something good in a person.

But the Bible says that the unbeliever is a slave of sin who doesn't seek for God, is a hater of God.

That's Romans 6, 14 through, or Romans 6, 14 through 20 and also Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12.

And the unbeliever cannot understand the things of God for it prudence is to him.

First Corinthians 2 .14 is by nature a child of wrath.

Ephesians 2 .3 is dead in his sins.

Ephesians 2 .1.

So because of that, God looking into the future, which implies that he'd be learning, which is another

problem.

But that means he would then be saying, well, what's gonna happen in different circumstances?

Well, that implies then that a person's free will, we haven't even discussed free will yet.

It implies that their free will will enable them to be able to simply choose God and that God knows who will choose

them.

And so he's gonna interact with that.

Well, there's two problems.

One is God's learning, the other one, well, three problems.

And then God is making his decision based upon what they do.

And the other one is it violates the scriptures that say that the unbelievers can't and they won't.

They're not gonna be able to come to God.

So there's several issues there that are just unbiblical and counter logical.

So unconditional election means that God has chosen whom he will for

salvation, not based on anything in us.

It's not conditioned on us.

It's conditioned on what's in him, the criteria that he has.

That's what that means.

And how will that criteria differ between different people?

In my opinion, like it's -.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

We're talking to him, but let's go one at a time.

Josh, go ahead.

Sorry.

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand like if me or the person next to me, one of us

is elected and one isn't, like what?

I mean, there's a couple of things on that.

Like when the Bible says, go out and preach the good news, are you preaching the good news to people if

they're not someone that is elected?

Like it doesn't, I'm just trying to work out how this is mentioned.

Our job is not to elect anybody, that's God's job.

The funny thing about election is the more we preach, apparently the more people are elect.

So we do not know how God works his sovereign decrees.

He works all things out for the counsel of his will, Ephesians 1 .11.

We Calvinists don't deny free will and we don't deny that our preaching affects

people's salvation.

We just don't know how it all works and nobody does.

And I've been, I'm very evangelical.

I wear this shirt, other shirts out public.

I wanna start conversations.

I look for opportunities to witness constantly.

And I do, I drop hints.

My last name is Slick and I was like, I did it today.

I was at a place and I said, yeah, my name is Slick and I'm a Reverend, Reverend Slick, it doesn't sound good.

And I use that, I want people to say really, where, what, who and get a conversation.

Most of the time they don't follow up.

I'm just saying, hey, you're trying.

And the issue is that God works at all according to his will.

And that's just, this is how it is.

So there are lots of verses that I could read to you.

I got a list of stuff about unconditional election where God chooses.

And a lot of things, here's a, I wanna make a comment for those who are listening, you might wanna discuss it later.

A lot of people are humanistic in their theology and then they attack the sovereignty of God in their humanism and they don't realize

they're doing this.

So Josh, maybe you've heard me do this before.

Can I set you up and trick you a little bit with something?

You sure can.

Okay, I'll try, all right?

And this is nothing malicious, which it's on the definition of free will.

You ever heard me do this before?

I don't think so, but go on.

Okay, good, good, a perfect victim, yes.

All right, here we go.

By the way, I have a cool accent, I like your accent.

So is free will the ability to be able to choose to do good, choose to do bad,

and you can choose which one you wanna do without being forced?

Is that free will?

I would say yes.

Okay, see, I told you I was gonna trick you, I told you I was gonna set you up.

And I did, and you fell for it and I'll explain how.

Okay, you're smiling, so I'm glad you're smiling.

So does God have free will?

Not by that definition.

Exactly, not by that definition.

So exactly correct.

So now what you've done is, and I used to do it too, is make free will a definition

based on my experience and my sensibilities instead of God being the center and God being the standard.

And it's humanism when we say, I know I chose God.

I know that I'm the one who made that choice.

That's how, I don't care what you say, I know what I did.

That's humanist thought.

And so the correct definition of free will would be the ability to make choices that are not forced,

that are consistent with your nature.

And that little bit right there is useful because Lionel is in twice now,

is useful because then it applies to God as well as the standard.

He cannot choose to do evil, but he can only do what is consistent with his nature.

Now we have a definition that is based on God's character.

And then when we apply it to man, because we're made in his image, then we can ask the unbeliever, he has a sinful

character.

He is a slave of sin, a hater of God, doesn't do any good.

He doesn't seek for God, et cetera, et cetera.

How can such a man simply choose God of his own free will?

And that's where we move from there and go that way.

Sure.

So just a point of clarification from before, I'm still just on unconditional election.

It sounded like in something that you said that the status of

whether someone is elected or not is dynamic or could or can change over

time.

Is that the case?

No.

Election happens from before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1 .4.

I hope Lion, come on back in, okay?

And we'll get you next because I asked you to come in.

But Ephesians 1 .4 says God chose us

in him before the foundation of the world.

So before we made any choices, before anything like that.

God had ordained it.

But like I said, we don't know how he did it.

We don't know what criteria, he doesn't tell us.

And so that's the way it is, but he did it before and it's set.

Right.

And is everyone that is elected, will everyone that is elected be saved because they,

like, okay.

So is there, theoretically, if you just pressed fast forward on the universe,

would the number of people, I'm trying to

work out how to word this.

If I go and become an evangelist and convert people,

or if I did not, would the same people that would have converted or have been saved be saved

regardless of my interaction with them because they were already elected?

See, that's a good question.

And now we're getting to what's called counterfactuals.

And I don't wanna get too heady here, but a counterfactual is, okay, God is a source of all

actuality and potentiality.

Out of an infinite number of potentialities, he chose one actuality along with his

thread of all actual events that actually occur.

And so it's like saying, could you have preached on that

corner or could you have not preached on that corner?

In one sense, yes.

In another sense, no.

In one sense, yes, you could have preached a different corner because you had the free will to do that.

But in another sense, no, you don't because God ordained that you do, even though it's within your freedom and he can

work it because he can change the heart of the king and make it go where he wishes it to go, Proverbs 21 .1.

And as I illustrate to people, like that thing behind you, that's a speaker, right?

Is that a keyboard way behind there with the blue lights, right?

Is that what it is?

Okay, so I got you to say yes by asking you a question, but I didn't

violate your free will.

Hold on, we got a line, we got to mute you because you're typing or doing something there.

Hold on, I'm gonna mute you.

Okay, go ahead, you can talk.

So I can get you to do what I want you to do without violating your free will and God can certainly do that as well.

But he can also change our wills within us so that what we freely wanna do is what we freely wanna do anyway.

He moves the heart of the king where he wishes it to go.

God is a lot more sovereign than we think he is because people are humanist in their ideology,

they don't even realize it.

Yeah, so I guess what that would lead me to is,

for example, if I wanted to go and be an evangelical person

and go and try and get more people saved or whether I don't, does that ultimately actually matter

because these people have already been elected?

It's a yes and a no again.

Does it matter or don't matter?

It doesn't matter in one sense, it does in another sense because God has ordained whatever shall come to pass

and he's not thwarted by your lack of faithfulness or my lack of faithfulness.

And he has his ways of covering the bases and yet all actualities exist

because God has ordained and chosen that they exist.

And so the actuality of you refusing to go preach is the actuality God has

ordained to exist.

So he's not surprised by it and yet, and this is where it gets interesting, yet you're still the one responsible.

And we get into what we call ultimate, proximate and efficient causation.

And these are interesting discussions, but you're a Lutheran, that's what you said.

So -.

No, I'm a -.

Oh, sorry.

Assemblies of God.

Ah, you're Arminian, pre -millennial,.

Probably a non -disciplinarian.

Honestly, I'm too green in this to understand all the different words, but yeah.

Okay.

Assemblies of God, I'm gonna just give you a heads up warning.

They are moving towards apostasy slowly, but they're affirming women pastors and elders, and that is

forbidden in scripture.

And 80 of all the groups that I've researched who affirm women pastors and elders within two generations start affirming

homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle.

And we can go into that if you want.

But anyway, so they're not saying they're not Christians, I'm just saying the movement is going bad.

It's just going downhill.

At least here in, where do you live?

Because you have an accent.

Australia.

Oh, okay.

Other side of the world.

Well, I'm surprised they let you do anything because COVID, crap.

Well, this is all we can do.

All you can do.

I've been researching a lot of COVID stuff, but anyway.

Hey, can we, might we switch over to Lyon and we'll see what he's got to say, okay?

No, I appreciate it, Matt.

Thanks a lot.

All right, man, anytime.

Hey, Lyon, are you there?

Yeah, I don't hear you.

He's probably frantically pressing buttons.

Are you there testing?

Testing.

Okay, can you hear me now?

Oh, I didn't unmute you.

I unmuted you, you didn't unmute.

You didn't ask me to talk, so that was my bad.

Yeah, I hear you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Just a second.

Just a second.

I had a good point.

My point was this.

In the Old Testament, there was like name in the Syrian and a whole bunch of people that weren't

regenerated, but they believed.

So I have a problem with the whole, like, you know, regeneration leads to faith rather than faith precedes that.

And then regeneration is a result of the belief.

And also in Ephesians 1 .13 -.

Wait, wait a minute, one at a time.

So you said in the Old Testament, you have to give me a scripture reference so that I can go in and look to see if what you're saying is

accurate.

Okie dokie, just a sec.

Sure.

Yeah, and not trying to be mean, but people say things.

I just don't assume that they're representing the issue properly.

I have to see the scriptures for myself so we can see.

Okay.

Might take you a bit.

And that's what I like to do.

So you're saying Nahum, right?

Naaman or Nahum?

Nahum's in Chronicles.

Hey Shane, how are you?

Tony Walker, he's okay from home in Australia.

Let's see.

David Rockey.

Let's see, we all have free will the same way a character in a novel has, but unlike most characters in a novel,

we know we have an author who wrote our parts.

So, okay, maybe Lion might wanna come back to that question later, because he can't find the reference.

One of the things I teach people is don't make assumptions.

Don't assume certain things are true.

And if you guys want, I can give you an illustration of that.

People do it all the time.

The reference was 2 Kings 5.

2 Kings 5?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Is there a particular verse in chapter five?

Just a second.

Just a second.

I always wanna know the exact reference so I can read it exactly and then go for it and look.

Okay.

Okay, just a second.

Okay.

Okay.

So around like verse 14 to - 14, okay.

14 to what?

Just a second.

To like,.

To 18.

Okay, tell you what I'm gonna do.

I'm gonna share the screen and look at the text, okay?

Okey -dokey.

All right.

Okay, I'm gonna get it to come up here.

There we go.

And there we go.

All right.

So I'll just make that the full size.

Come on, open up.

Oh, there we go, right there.

All right.

So you're talking about 2 Kings 5, 14.

So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan.

According to the word, man of God is restored.

When he returned to the man of God with all his company and came and stood before him, he said, behold, I know that there is no God in all

the earth but Israel.

So please take a present from your servant now.

And he said, as the Lord lives before whom I stand, I'll take nothing.

And he urged him to take it, but he refused.

Noam said, if not, please let your servant at least be given two mules, a load of

earth.

Interesting, load of earth for your servant will no longer offer burnt offerings or real sacrifice that are God's, but to the Lord,

this matter, may the Lord pardon your servant.

When my master goes to the house of Rimen to worship there and he leans on my hand and I bow myself

in the house of Rimen, when I bow myself in the house of Rimen, the Lord would pardon.

Okay, yep.

So what's this about?

My point was that he had faith and wasn't born again because it was like the Holy Spirit hadn't

been given to everyone back then.

So wouldn't that?

Wait, wait, wait, who's the he?

Wait, wait, wait, who's the he?

And believe what, you have to be very specific.

Okay.

Name in the Syrian.

He's the one with leprosy who dipped in the river seven times.

Yeah, okay.

And what?

That he had faith, but like, you know, in reformed theology, it says like you get regenerated first and then

the faith comes, but nobody was regenerated back then and he had faith.

In reformed theology, the doctrine of salvation and justification, regeneration precedes

faith logically, not temporally.

So there's also an issue in reformed theology about whether or not salvation was actually possible

in the Old Testament.

If it had to be done, it could only be ratified once the blood of Christ had been set.

But it does say that Abraham believed God was created in his righteousness, Genesis 15, six, seven.

So you're saying Nathan, was he believed?

Many people believe.

The centurion in the New Testament believed in God and would believe in this stuff, but you still have to

trust in Christ to be born again.

And that's the context of being born again.

You have to be born from above and from on earth.

So I don't see how this proves or disproves anything.

Okay.

What were you gonna say about Ephesians?

Same thing.

It says Ephesians 1, 13 to 14.

Ephesians 1, 13.

In him, you also, after listening to the message of the truth of the gospel of your salvation, having also

believed, you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who was given as a pledge of our inheritance with the view of the redemption of

God's own measure for the praise of his glory.

Okay.

So this refutes regeneration proceeding faith?

Seems to.

Let me ask you, do you think the regeneration proceeding faith is something like this happens and then a second or two or three or

10 seconds later, something else happens?

Is that what you think it is?

I think it's that you have faith first and then you call out to God and

he sends the Holy Spirit into you.

Okay.

So then you could believe, but then a minute later, 10 seconds later, you become regenerate?

Is that what it is?

Yeah.

Cause like I've talked to friends of mine and stuff and like they had somewhat of a

faith before they were actually born again, but they told me the difference was like when you believe the resurrection

and then boom, then they got regenerated and whatnot.

Okay, let me explain what the reform perspective is because you're not understanding it, okay?

We don't teach that regeneration proceeds faith or faith procedure generation in a temporal sense.

We don't teach it.

We deny both of those in a temporal sense, not the logical sense.

And let me explain the difference.

Temporal priority would be an event occurs and another event occurs is because of that,

say five seconds later, it could be any length of time, but we'll just use five seconds.

That's temporal priority.

So if I flip the light switch on and electricity enters the light bulb,

then it's already there, but it just becomes active.

Then five seconds later, the light comes up.

We would say that there's a temporal priority.

Electricity is there temporally for five seconds before the light comes on.

And that was just an illustration, but that's what we would say or that's what temporal priority is.

Logical priority is this, that electricity is there and because it's

there, the light is also there, but they're simultaneous.

They occur at the same time, but logical priority means that the electricity has to be there in order

for light to be there.

Whenever you flip the light switch on, electricity is in that light bulb and light is also there.

They happen at the same time, but it's electricity that's the cause of the light, not the light that's the

cause of the electricity.

So we would say that electricity is logically prior.

We reject temporal priority, but we affirm what's called logical priority.

So when a lot of times Calvinists don't know how to illustrate stuff, they don't know their theology as well as they need to, but this is what we

mean by regeneration preceding faith, that it's a logical priority, not a temporal one.

All right, that make sense?

Okay.

Can I show you something else?

Let me show you something, okay?

Here are, these are my notes and this is my, mine's on Calvinism, all right?

So I have, this is my document that I work on periodically.

It's 94 pages and I can go through and I can click on different topics right here,

like limited atonement, defined, it takes me right to it and stuff like that.

And total depravity, for example, I can go here and this is what total depravity says.

Man is completely touched and affected by sin and all that he is in nature as he's completely fallen,

but he's not as bad as he could be.

That's his actions, not all murder, et cetera.

Furthermore, this total depravity means that the unregenerate will not, of their own free sinful,

their own sinful free will, excuse me, choose to receive Christ because their hearts are full of wickedness, Jeremiah 17,

9.

They're enslaved to sin, Romans 6, 14 through 20.

Cannot receive spiritual things, 1 Corinthians 2, 14.

Are dead in their sins, are by nature children of wrath, are at enmity with God and can do no good.

So they have the free will to choose, but the free will will choose to sin.

Therefore, they will freely choose to do what is contrary to God.

No one's forcing them, they're freely doing that.

See, the Calvinists don't deny free will.

You're free to do what they want.

But we would have to say that God would have to regenerate us first in order for us to

believe.

So watch, I'll show you some verses.

Regeneration precedes, okay, precedes faith.

And here's the illustration of the light bulb I already gave, okay.

And because of this, let's see, where are the verses?

Oh, where's it go?

I wanted to get a different list.

Let's see if I can find this.

Oh, it's up there.

So I know what I'll do, I'll do this.

John 6, 65, and just search for that.

So this is what Jesus says.

He says, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and will raise him up on the last day.

Jesus says, and he was saying, for this reason I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it's been

granted to him from the Father.

So here's a question we Calvinists would ask.

If it's up to the person's sinful free will and they just need the right information or whatever to

come to Christ, then why does Jesus say that no one, no one can come

to him unless it's been granted to him from the Father?

Because if it's someone's free will, then why is that a true statement?

Because if it was up to their free will, then God wouldn't have to grant it, you see?

There's like another verse in Matthew 11, where it says, you

have hid these things from the wise and revealed them under paved.

Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in that sight.

All things are delivered to me by my Father.

No man knows the Father, save the Son, to whomsoever you shall reveal it to.

So that one seems to, I think about this stuff a lot.

That one seems, it lines up that verse in John.

But then why would Jesus say, come to me all ye that labor and are heavy laden if it's only,

like, if he doesn't allow.

Let me ask you, are you setting scripture against scripture?

I'm just confused.

Okay.

I don't really get it.

Okay, okay, so you're seeing things.

You're not setting scripture against scripture.

You're not understanding how the things can relate, okay?

No.

Okay, so we have specific sentences, specific statements that are

doctrinally precise.

So, and a certain woman named Lydia from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God was listening, and the

Lord opened her heart to respond to things spoken of by Paul.

So here we have an example of something.

We're gonna go to those verses.

I'm gonna ask you which one they were again, and we'll go to them and take a look.

But see, the Lord opened her heart.

So could, okay, the question is, did the Lord open her heart?

Well, yeah.

Can the Lord open the heart of anybody he wants to?

And the answer is yes.

Well, then why doesn't he?

Here's, let me show you something else, okay?

Because all of this has to fit together, and it's hard sometimes to make it all fit together.

And as soon as he was alone, his followers, along with the 12, began asking him the parables.

And he was saying to them, to you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are on the outside

get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while

hearing, they may hear and not understand.

Otherwise, they might return and be forgiven.

Amen.

So Jesus is speaking in such a way so people will not be saved.

He chooses, he chooses people not to save, and he chooses people to save,

because God opens the heart, right?

And we could also go here, and then, okay.

So I'm just saying there's a group of scriptures, okay?

He opened their mind to understand the scriptures, all right?

Now, you quote a verse.

Let's go to one of those verses you quoted.

Give me one of the ones, an address that you quoted, and I'll go to it.

I'll show you something.

Matthew 11, 27.

Yeah, I love that verse.

All things have been handed over to me, my father, and no one knows the son except the father, nor does anyone know the

father except the son, and anyone to whom the son wills to reveal him.

This is also in Luke 11, 22.

So, hold on.

Sorry for my throat.

So he says, now, here's what's interesting, is notice what's going on.

In the next verse, come to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, I'll give you rest.

So we Calvinists will look at this and go, okay.

No one can come to the father except the son, and to anyone the

son wills to reveal him.

Wait a minute.

So you can't come to know God, the father, unless Jesus reveals him.

Okay.

And then Jesus says, come to me, all who are heavy laden.

Wait a minute.

Why would he say, come to me, all who are heavy laden, I'll give you rest.

But then he says that the only one who can know the father is the one he reveals to him.

Now, here's the thing.

This is a problem here.

If you assume that come to me means they have what's called libertarian free will.

Hey, anybody can choose.

Anybody can choose, it's just up to their free will.

That's what they would be saying.

And then they would have a problem.

But what if it was compatible as free will, which means that our choices and our freedom is compatible with the

predestination of God.

Then we wouldn't have a problem.

We'd say, come to me.

All the ones who come are the ones God has granted that they would come.

Well, then it makes sense.

Then we wouldn't have any conflict here, would we?

You see?

What Calvinists do very often is approach the scriptures logically.

What does it say?

How do we get this one?

How do we do this?

Let's work them together.

Not saying we always do it right, but that's the idea.

Do you have any more questions?

Can you all see the Bible screen?

Can you all see it?

Everything work out nicely?

Is it big enough?

Yeah.

Okay, good.

Yeah.

Thanks, Tony Tebb.

My other one is, do all Calvinists like,

what do you call it where every single thing is predetermined?

Not just like, you know, me going to the grocery store, it's like.

We call it biblical.

Yeah.

All things.

Okay, it says, also we have obtained an inheritance having been predestined according to his purpose who works all things after

the counsel of his will.

You going to the store, you talking to me is included in all things that's worked after the counsel of his will.

We call it being biblical.

But that -.

Let me answer you, Tony.

I'm not prepped up for preterism and stuff.

I got so much other stuff that is down the road.

That would be down the road, if at all.

Okay, so anyway, see Tony, I mean, Lyon.

Sorry, man.

Okay, so does God work all things after the counsel of his will?

Yeah.

Would you say that all things -.

Wouldn't that mean that he like,.

Like, why would, like, wouldn't that mean that, sorry to suck on a hard time, thank you.

It's all right.

That's all right.

Okay, let me -.

Like, like, like, John Calvin had some writings and saying, like, even like,

God causes people to do stuff, but like, wouldn't, why wouldn't God just want

people to not sin against him?

If he's like ordering stuff again, like, yeah.

Okay, let's watch this.

Let's see if I can find this.

Let's see if I can send, I should have these memorized.

It's in, sure, it's the anger of the Lord, and it motivate to number Israel.

That's right, to number Israel.

Okay, Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

Okay, you see that?

All right.

Yeah.

Also, in 2 Samuel 24, now again, the anger of the Lord burned,

the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and it incited David against him to say, go number

Israel and Judah.

So wait a minute.

So look what it says here.

The anger of the Lord burned against Israel and it incited David

against them, Israel, to say, go number Israel and Judah.

This is what it says.

Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

So Satan - So it's like Satan was the anger of the Lord.

Satan was doing it.

The anger of the Lord motivated him.

And look at this in verse 10.

Now David's heart troubled him after he had numbered the people.

So David said to the Lord, I have sinned greatly in what I've done.

But now, O Lord, please take away the iniquity of your servant for I have acted very foolishly.

Now, wait a minute.

Satan moved against David to have him number it.

The anger of the Lord moved against Israel and motivated him to number

Israel.

And yet Dave was the one who sinned, right?

Yeah.

Now let me explain something here.

We have what we, I'm gonna introduce some concepts here.

Ultimate, proximate, and efficient causation, okay?

So what we have here is this.

So ultimate causation.

God is the one who created Israel, right?

He created the earth.

He created the land.

So God's the ultimate cause of David numbering Israel.

The ultimate cause because nothing would exist if God ultimately hadn't created it to be there.

All right.

The proximate causation is Satan is there and we'll just stick with,

what we'll do is we'll stick with this one with God, okay?

Now the anger, again, the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and it incited David against them.

So this is what we would call the proximate cause, all right?

Because it was the anger of the Lord that was there, that was existing, that if God

had not let his anger be known or experienced, then that second level, the proximate

causation would not have been in effect.

Proximate means it's next to the actual event.

It's proximate.

It's approximate, but it's proximate right next to it.

The efficient cause was David himself doing the numbering of Israel.

He's the one who chose to do it.

He did it.

God didn't make him, but the anger of God is approximate cause, but God's not the

one responsible for David's sin.

It's like -.

God was the ultimate cause.

Satan was the proximate one and then David was the efficient one.

We could say that God was more.

In the issue of 2 Samuel 24, we could say that we could say God was approximate.

We could also say, if we go to the other verse of 1 Chronicles,

what was it?

That Satan is the one who's the ultimate, that is approximate cause, depending on which one.

So another way of looking at it is the garden of Adam and Eve.

They sinned.

Adam chose to sin.

He's the efficient cause.

He chose to sin.

The proximate cause is God let the devil come into the garden and

talk to Eve, let him do it.

So those are the conditions that are right next to the efficient cause, but God didn't make the

snake come in there.

He let the snake come in or do what was natural to it.

He could have stopped, but he chose not to.

So ultimately God's responsible for the fall in the sense of the ultimate sense, he made the earth, the

universe, the earth, the galaxy, the garden.

The proximate cause could be said to be God's also because he let the serpent come into

the garden and let them communicate.

But the efficient cause, the actual cause of the sin is actually Adam who disobeyed by his own

free will.

So we in reformed theology actually talk about ultimate, proximate, and efficient causation.

It's not a way just to confuse things and try and get out of something.

We think about these things, we wonder, because we're looking at the scriptures.

Well, what do we do with this?

This is what the scripture says.

How do we answer this?

And we say, well, you know.

How.

Judas by his own choice did that, but it was actually kind of serving God's will.

Exactly, and that's the thing because I'm very glad you said that because

you were absolutely correct.

God ordained that Judas do it, but he's not

the cause of Judas doing it.

He ordained whichever shall come to pass because he ordained that, for example, Judas did

not have an aneurysm in his brain and die, or the guy in the robe who would

have deflected Judas from his path to go and meet Jesus, right?

God didn't allow that to occur.

So God is sovereign.

He ordains things, but he can ordain something without being the direct cause.

People don't like that, but I have to work with them step -by -step and they go, I see what you're saying.

And the theologians, not just reformed theologians, but others have worked through these things and said, well, how do we deal with

this?

What do we do?

He lost, he came back.

And so what we'll do is we'll say, how does that work?

These are the questions that we ask according to the scriptures, as I show you scripture.

Okay, how do we deal with this?

And these are some of the solutions we've come up with.

Okay.

Yeah.

That help?

Yeah.

Okay.

There's that verse in Acts 4 or 2 where it says, the pre

412, I think it is, the predetermined plan.

Yeah, for truly in this city, they were gathered together against your holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate,

along with the Gentiles, the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur.

And then when you go to Acts 2 .23, it says this, this man delivered over by the

predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and

put him to death.

So we have, it's a good example of a proximate and efficient causation.

So you see, Ephesians 11.

It's so level how God's sovereignty works like that.

There you go.

Yes, that's correct.

God is sovereign over all things.

He works them, they were the ones gathered by God.

Ultimately, God's the one responsible for gathering them.

Ultimately, God's the one responsible for them coming against Jesus.

But efficiently, they're the ones who in their own choice of freedom, decided to crucify Christ.

God didn't make him do it.

He didn't take his hand and put it on the hand of a Jew and then take a hammer and put it in his hand and make him

do it.

That's not how it worked.

It's still of his own free will.

And yet God is sovereign over those free will choices.

Okay, that does help a lot.

Okay.

That helps.

So it's not like, that's a great way of putting it actually.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Oh, let me get...

We don't need Charlie's spine in here.

He's such a loser because he's my friend.

He's a good guy though.

He is.

Charlie's a good guy.

Actually, Charlie is the one who got me involved in apologetics.

A lot of people don't know that.

He read me the first quote that got me going.

So anybody else have any comments or questions?

I'm trying to unmute people.

Unmute.

Roger Hopson and unmute little me.

But I can't...

Okay, there.

Roger got unmuted.

Hey, Roger, you wanna ask any questions or anything?

Yeah, I'll ask you some questions, why not?

Are you reformed, not reformed or what?

Just curious.

I am reformed.

Okay.

Okay, my question is this.

Okay.

Let's say the gospel that Paul was preaching and teaching, let's say in Romans,

Paul pretty much believed in predestination, and God elects before the foundation of the world.

Yeah.

And the son dies for that elect.

Right.

And the Holy Spirit brings the elect to faith and grants faith and grants repentance.

Yeah.

And everybody that Jesus died for will be saved because who's gonna

bring a charge against God's elect.

Yeah.

And Paul gives all the glory to God for granting salvation, washing and

regeneration that brings people to faith.

Amen.

That's the way I take it.

Good, good.

Okay, so if I come along and say, okay, I see Jesus died on the cross and he

forgives the world's sins.

And like the Lutherans, they believe that they have to do works and sacraments

and I have to go grab that faith for myself.

And I believe, and I do this.

Is that a different gospel?

Depends.

Because definition, and we had to look more into what they

mean.

Well, I went to a Lutheran college and I'm familiar with a lot of what they teach.

Well, I listened to a lot of Dr. Cooper and all these other people.

And they're gonna say that the cross is universal.

They'll go with all in the world.

And they'll always mean that as every single person is every single whip.

Wait a minute, wait, wait, wait.

I didn't understand.

I couldn't follow your sentence.

I have a hearing loss, so repeat that.

Okay, they're gonna take the word all in world and they're

gonna put that as Jesus died for all as in every single person that ever lived.

Yeah, that's impossible.

And he died.

And he died from scripture.

Well, that's what, you know, that's what, you know.

That's what they're gonna do, but they haven't studied it enough.

Exactly.

But I can prove it from scripture.

And they're gonna say, it's up to man, his free will, to accept this and

apply this.

And if you don't, it's your fault.

And my question is, is that what Paul preached?

No, it's not.

But we do have to have our own free will receive because if we don't do it of our own free will, then we're not the ones doing it.

We have to believe.

We freely do believe, but we would say because he regenerated us and freed us, gave us that ability.

But on the other hand, he grants that we believe Philippians 1 .29.

And our believing is the work of God, John 6, 28, 29.

If someone was gonna say that they have to do anything, any works in order to be

saved, then it's a false gospel.

Now we know that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone, and that's it, nothing else, not by sacraments, not by baptism

added to it, because that would be a false gospel.

So then we have to define, we have to see what group and what people are saying what in what particular areas to

see what they mean.

Yeah, I would take it as, see the way I see that is that if I've came to a lot of people, I've talked to a lot of people online,

I run a reform page.

So we get lots of comments of, well, I, like you were saying before, is I

believed, I did it, it's up to me.

If I don't wanna believe, then it's up to me.

And I control this, I'm in control of the seat.

I'm the one that's gonna save me, and I'm the one that's not.

That's humanism.

Yeah, and then they're gonna say, Jesus did his part.

If you don't do yours, then you're not gonna be saved.

Yeah, it's Mormonism, Job's Witnesses, Roman Catholicism.

Yeah.

Pretty much every religion except biblical Christianity.

Right, exactly right, biblical Christianity.

And my thoughts have always been is like, once you

start reading through the Bible and you put all these things together where you're

predestined, God grants faith, Jesus dies for the elect, so all their sins

are forgiven, and the Holy Spirit brings people to faith.

When all that happens, you see it from the beginning of the Bible to the end of the Bible,

it all makes sense.

Yeah, I agree.

And when people believe they saved, I think they believe they saved yourself by,

they muster up the belief and they do these things.

Yeah, they're ignorant.

I wouldn't say they're not saved,.

But I would say they're ignorant because they do have to believe.

What we reformed do is just analyze it to a deeper level.

And one of the problems with doing this is we can become arrogant and start saying, well, they don't believe that, they don't have that really

minutia and understanding, so therefore they're not saved, we can't do that.

Yeah, I'm not applying that.

I'm just saying that, and the way I see it is like, I mean, I truly believe you

can be an Arminian and, you know, cause I've met a lot of people that are, you know, they,

you know, I mean, I get in a lot of fights with Leighton Flowers and you know how he is.

He's pretty much a Pelagian and you know, he -.

Who?

Leighton Flowers.

Oh, he's got problems.

Yeah, he's got problems, he's a Pelagian.

Yeah, is he really a full Pelagian or semi?

Well, he does not believe that anything has to happen.

Man in their natural flesh can actually believe.

But his thing is, is the power -.

Yeah, I've spanked him on that one.

Yeah, his thing is that the power comes from hearing the gospel and that's what enables.

It's not like you have to believe, you know, there's a -.

Yeah, but the problem is, if someone's gonna say the power to come to the gospel, that's Romans 1 16, the gospel of God is a power to salvation,

that's true.

But is it the presentation of the word?

What happens in the person's heart and mind?

Or is this saying that the person is enabled somehow to go back to a neutral state of existence and they can believe or not believe?

Well, then if that's the case, I'd say show that to me from scripture, which they can get out of the second, they can out of second

moronicals.

But the other thing is, why does one person's free will in that state enable them to believe another one does not?

Calvinist can answer that question, they can't.

Well, I took him to Colossians 2 14 and I said, you know, Leighton, who -.

Oh yeah, who would you take, Nate, Leighton Flowers?

And what'd he do?

Well, he actually avoided the question altogether

and he brought up some more passages.

He says, well, if you believe that, then you believe that you're saved before you even believe.

He doesn't understand the issue, he does not understand.

I need to talk to him again, we need to have a discussion.

Yeah, so yeah, he pretty much avoided the question and I still asked him a couple of times before and

he's not got back to me.

Yeah, we've met actually and we've talked.

I don't know if I have a cell number or not, but we need to talk some time about it and

have another meeting, I guess, yeah.

Okay, so you got my side of the question of, okay, where's this, you know, not the gospel, where's that

line?

But my other question - I do have his number, yeah.

The other side of that is that you're gonna get people like Leighton Flowers and say, Yoda, this is not

biblical, this is the doctor of devils, they're teaching, you know.

You know, the reform gets a bad name, but a lot of times it's more of the Arminian side that's pointing the finger saying,

you're not evil, your God doesn't, you know.

Because they're humanists.

Yes.

They're humanistic in their philosophy.

And, you know, when I talked to Leighton about Philippians 129, which says he grants that we believe, he

goes, no, God grants the opportunity for us to believe.

And I said, that's not what it says, I said, he grants that we believe.

No, he grabs the opportunity to believe.

He, you know, had to alter the text to make it fit his theology.

So that's, you know.

Well, like I said, I'll go back and forth with Leighton Flowers, and he's analogy king.

He always brings up analogies to everything.

Yeah.

Never goes to the text.

But I was just curious on, you know, what you thought about what the gospel was, and, you know, how

that's applied.

Because like I said, if you don't believe that, you know, there's an election and that God brings you to faith,

your idea is like that you can bring people to faith and you can not believe

if you're a true believer.

And, you know what I mean?

It's just brings in all kinds of, I see of errors of, you know, what the

gospel is and what is being applied here.

There's a lot of problems.

Leighton Flowers is causing problems.

It needs to stop.

He's causing division in the body of Christ.

It needs to stop.

Okay.

All right.

I was hoping some anti -Calvinists would come in here and challenge, you know, the ones who were so vociferous

and pejorative that they would come in and talk snot.

I would let them talk.

We'd ask questions and have a dialogue.

I'm not gonna be, I'm not mean, just asking.

There's the link if anybody wants to join us in.

So little me, you wanna ask a question?

Hello.

Hey, how are you doing?

Good, how are you?

Fine.

That's good.

I have a question about covenant theology.

And I don't really know like that.

Well what it is.

Okay.

Covenant theology is the idea that the Bible is covenantally arranged and that God

works covenantally.

So the word in Latin for covenant is testamentum.

Old Testament, New Testament, Old Covenant, New Covenant.

In the blood of the eternal covenant in Hebrews 13, 20, which I believe is the inter -Trinitarian communion to

elect and to have the son be the one who redeems.

A covenant is a pact or an agreement between two or more parties.

So my wife and I made a covenant of marriage and here's my covenant sign, my wedding ring right there.

So covenants have signs.

And it turns out that the 10 commandments are arranged in a covenant pattern that was used in

the third millennium BC over there.

And I can get into it, but when you have covenants, both parties have a

copy of the covenant, 10 commandments and 10 commandments, two and two.

And they're kept in the Ark of the Covenant, which is the possession of God and in the possession of man.

So copies for both parties.

And there are different kinds of covenants.

There's conditional covenants, there's non -conditional covenants.

Conditional covenant, for example, my marriage, till death do you part.

So we're married until one of us dies and then the other one is no longer married.

And so that's a conditional covenant.

Unconditional covenants would be that there's no condition on the covenant, it'll always be that way.

And so we have that in us justified by faith as a covenantal requirement, but God grants that we have faith

and as long as we have that faith, it's forever.

But some people might say, well, it's conditioned on you having faith.

Well, God grants that we have faith, Philippians 1 .29, and he's never gonna leave us or forsake us, Hebrews 13 .5.

So therefore we're gonna have eternal life and some other stuff.

So it's not conditioned on our faithfulness, but on his.

And so there's different kinds of covenants.

And the Old Testament covenant ended at the death of Christ, the Old Testament covenant

pattern type and stuff.

And it was the new covenant was ratified at the death of Christ.

And that's per Romans, excuse me, Hebrews 8 .13 and Hebrews 9 .15 through 16.

At the death of Christ, the new covenant is instituted.

In the Old Covenant, God had promised to Abraham in you, all the

nations shall be blessed, Genesis 12 .3.

Paul quotes that in Galatians 3 .8 and calls that the gospel.

And in this, he said, here's what you have to do.

You have to leave this land and you're gonna have children and all the nations of the world will be blessed in you.

Excuse me.

And so the covenant promises of God included such things as the land,

protection, the Messiah would come through, that God be faithful.

And there are conditions on this, that the people of Israel had to remain faithful and they're supposed to accept the

Messiah ultimately when he came.

So this kind of a covenant had stipulations in it.

But yeah, it's kind of a combo because God can never break his own covenant requirements.

But he puts stipulations in.

And if we break the covenant, then we are the ones who incur the wrath, but God can never break a

covenant because he can't ever break a covenant.

He's just the way he is.

So he said that he would covenant with Abraham to bless all the world.

And that the ultimate manifestation of that was through the birth of the Messiah.

And so the Messiah did come and the world is blessed because of it.

But in that, the covenant requirements, Israel was supposed to accept the Messiah.

This is why Jesus said, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matthew 15, 24.

He was sent only to Israel covenantally, but Israel rejected the covenant

requirements.

And so we were grafted into that covenant faithfulness.

And then Genesis 12, three, in you all the nations shall be blessed, was ratified

and made an actuality.

So I'm just jumping around because covenant is a big topic.

So covenant theology would say God works covenantally, not dispensationally.

A dispensation is that God works in periods of times, different ways.

You know, seven dispensations or three dispensations, but that doesn't occur in scripture,

but they will say, you know, during the garden, it was the dispensation of God's grace.

And then during the old Testament, the dispensation of his law.

And now it's the dispensation of redemption.

But in my opinion, these are just made up categories to get a biblical number like seven, and then they wanna

have them.

And there's not biblical, but dispensations are based upon man's understanding of how

God works, but they don't understand that he works the same way, covenantally and by grace.

Even the manifestation of the law, which they'll sometimes say the dispensation of the law, they don't understand that even the

law of God is an act of grace upon us.

And they'll say, well, yeah, we recognize his grace, but we say it's the dispensation of law.

And it goes on and back and forth.

And I don't buy into dispensationalism at all.

And I don't know if that helps or not, but it's a big topic.

And you can go to Carmen, you can look up covenant theology and you can see categories and covenants and stuff like that.

So what's the difference between covenant theology and new covenant theology?

Ah, I forgot.

I used to know.

New covenant has to do with a certain set of aspects, a few more specifics

in a more narrow sense.

And I forgot which ones they were.

So off the top of my head, don't remember.

Okay.

I have another question about the 10 commandments.

Sure.

So the 10 commandments, would that be considered under the covenant of Moses?

Well, it was God's covenant with the people of Israel.

And the covenant pattern back then was to say, this is who I am, this is what I've done.

And the covenant pattern back there starts with, I'm the Lord your God, but we brought you out of the land of Egypt.

This is how the 10 commandments begin.

And you shall honor your mother and your father for he who does all bless, he who does not curse.

These are the representatives of the conditions of the covenant, along with,

they're called the stipulations with the rewards and punishments.

So a covenant of that pattern would open up with, this is who I am, this is what I've done.

Here's the requirements of the covenant for both parties.

And here's the rewards for keeping the covenants and the punishments for breaking the covenant.

And those are in the 10 commandments.

And so it's a covenant that God instituted with man.

So to call it a Mosaic covenant, just depends how you wanna call it, because it was given to

Moses, hence Mosaic, but it's really God's covenant with Israel.

So as Christians, we are not under the obligation to follow the 10 commandments?

That's right.

We're not obligated to follow them in order to keep ourselves saved or to become saved.

See, we have died with Christ, Romans 6, 6, Romans 6, 8, Colossians 3, 1 through 5.

And Romans 7, 4 says that whoever's died is freed from the law.

And if there is no law, there is no imputation of sin, Romans 5, 13, Romans 4, 15, I think all sorts of 13.

And so we don't have to follow the law, but we do, because the

law that we're supposed to follow is love God, and the other one is love your neighbor.

If we love God and we love our neighbor, we're gonna accidentally fulfill all the 10 commandments.

But Jesus is our rest.

Matthew 11, 28, you know, come to me all who are heavy laden, I will give you rest.

And so we will find our rest in him and we're in him.

So we don't have any law we have to keep, but we get to love God and love our neighbors because that's a

change in our nature.

We made new creatures, 2 Corinthians 5, 17.

And so therefore we accidentally keep all the law, I like to say, by loving God and loving your neighbor.

Yeah, that makes sense, because I've been struggling a lot with like all the covenants and stuff, because I've been running into like

Seventh -day Adventists and they're telling me that the 10 commandments are God's moral law and that it'll go

from, you know, I guess like beginning to end because it's his law, his moral law.

Yeah, and so ask them a question, what's the honor of mother and father, right?

It's gonna last forever, okay?

Does that mean if our mom and dad are with us in heaven, we have to honor them in heaven?

Do what they say?

Just curious, how's it work?

Start asking specifics and see what they say.

And they don't, you know, they don't really think these things through a lot.

Plus the Sabbath is the only commandment not reiterated in the New Testament.

So the commandment of those 10 is the only one not reiterated, because Jesus is our rest,

okay?

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Okay, so I just gotta ask questions a lot and -.

Well, let's see if anybody else has anything.

They wanna jump in and ask.

Roger's in, I just put the link in if anybody else wants to ask.

This is about reformed theology.

If anybody wants to ask questions, if you're an anti -reformed person, come on up.

I'll treat everybody nicely.

Just, you know, ask questions.

And if you don't, that's okay.

But go ahead, ask another question.

And Matt, can we talk Seventh -day Adventism?

Your discussion last week with us, Seventh -day Adventists showed what I've been trying to say for years.

People need to be warned of SDA -ism.

Some SDA are Christians, some are not.

But official SDA theology is bad.

And I'm reading more up on it.

What I'm doing now is I stopped working on SDA to work on COVID research.

And then I'm gonna go back to SDA, finish up on the SDA research.

Then I have to go back to EO, Eastern Orthodoxy, and do more research on them while I'm doing

other stuff.

A lot of stuff I'm doing.

But we can talk SDA to come up to the mic or ask specific questions.

But I would not consider the SDA church, if they believe official doctrine, to be Christian.

You guys are close to an expert on SDA?

Come on in then.

Now, are you an SDA person, Myles?

I'm always open to be taught and to learn, to be corrected even with documentation.

I love documentation.

Can we change God's mind?

Not from eternity, Laura, but temporally we can certainly appear to.

And it's called the now and the not yet.

Yeah, that's what I've heard.

A lot of them rejected a lot of essential doctrines like the Trinity and things like that.

Could I ask a question?

I mean, it's not related to Reformed theology.

Sure, go ahead.

It's about the laws of logic and the impossibility of the contrary.

So how do we know the Bible is true without first justifying that our logic

is sound, I guess?

Everybody has to beg the question in order to assert or believe anything.

You have to assume certain things to be true by which you can then base a belief on.

So if you believe that logic is necessary for you to discern things, you have to assume the validity of the laws of logic.

If you believe that God exists and you wanna prove that He exists, you gotta assume His existence.

And everybody does this because you can't prove every single thing about every single thing you want to use.

The question then becomes, if everybody begs the question, which worldview can justify, make sense of the begging

of the question?

And only the Christian worldview can, okay?

Could you give me an example of how an atheist can't, I guess, justify begging the

question or whatever?

You'll say, well, begging the question is an issue of logic.

You're assuming the thing to be true, okay?

On what justifies your assumption to begin with?

Well, it's just the way things are.

I've had atheists say, well, it's just the way things are.

Oh, okay, well, then God just is because that's just the way things are.

So if I use your logic, I refute you.

Got something better?

Well, we just know that the laws of logic represent reality.

Have you examined all of reality?

No.

And so how do you know they are just the way the reality is?

How do you know that there's, and that's one thing question.

I'll say, how is it that an abstraction can have an effect on the material?

How is it that two plus two equals four, which is logic, properly represents actuality?

What is it about math that represents physicalness correctly?

Because math is not a physical thing.

It's an abstraction that occurs in the mind.

So I ask all kinds of questions and they fall apart.

They can't justify anything that they have because they don't have any basis for transcendentals.

A transcendental is a truth statement abstraction, whatever you want to call it, that is universal

applicable, universally applicable, right?

Well, how do you have a universal truth without a universal mind?

So what they do is they invent abstract entities.

These are just, or propositions are just truth bearing things.

Well, what is a truth bearer?

Well, we don't know what it is.

We just know what it is not.

So you invent this.

No, they're real things.

How do you know they're real things?

Because we say so.

So they are doing a lot where they just guess a lot of stuff.

And it just takes practice, a little bit of practice to start asking them to justify all the things that they

say and you'll find out that they can't.

Okay.

Hey, Miles.

Could an atheist, oh, sorry.

What's up, man?

Hey.

You're an expert on SDA?

Are you SDA?

I'm former SDA.

Well, I'm sorry, what?

I'm former.

I'm a former Seventh -day Adventist.

I'm a former.

Oh, okay.

How long were you a member of the SDA church?

For close to 18 years.

My dad's a Seventh -day Adventist pastor.

So I grew up in SDA schooling.

I went to an SDA university even after I was converted

with one of the reasons being to try and reach Seventh -day Adventists.

So that's what I was saying about Simon Horne about seeing your discussion the other day.

I've been trying to reach out to a number of other people like Apology at Church and Jeff Durbin saying, I think you made

a good caveat that it needs to be stated that if you affirm official Seventh -day Adventist doctrine,

that's the issue.

There's lots of genuine saved Seventh -day Adventists, but if they affirm what

the Seventh -day Adventist church officially teaches, they're absolutely not Christian.

They don't believe in the Trinity.

They believe tritheism.

And then obviously you've got all the historical errors with the history of Alan White and Millerism and

primarily to the investigative judgment, which I never really see people talk about.

But even if an Adventist doesn't mention or bring up the investigative judgment, they still have to deal with the fact

that that has influenced almost all of their fundamental doctrines.

So how old are you, if I can ask?

28.

Okay.

Yeah, I'd like to connect with you and discuss stuff because when I get done with my COVID research, I'm gonna jump headlong

into SDA stuff.

And last night I went to bed and I was reading a booklet on SDA because I multitask, but I wanna be

able to get to the bottom of a lot of the SDA stuff.

I have a whole bunch of books on Kindle, on SDA.

I've got their stuff downloaded.

I've got a lot of their writings.

I got, let's see, websites, I should say, for LNG rights,

writings, all kinds of stuff.

And so when I dig in, I really dig in, you know, used to have 10 to 15, 20 books open at a time.

Now I do everything in Windows on my stuff.

So I'm looking for all kinds of documentation and on the investigative judgment, which I've always

said is bad news.

And I was reading the investigative judgment issue.

I actually talked to an SDA guy once.

I said, look, I read through this once and I got sidetracked, I couldn't do it a second time.

I said, I went through this once.

If what I'm understanding it to say is true, SDA can't be Christian.

Flat out is what I told him.

And he goes, well, maybe he didn't read it right.

I go, maybe it's possible.

But what I was understanding of as the investigative judgment is that in 1844, Christ moved into the

sanctuary in order to finish the atoning work.

And at the beginning of the investigative judgment, October 22nd, I think it was 1844, and that

you will be judged for your salvation based on your works.

Isn't that right?

Correct, correct.

So it's interesting, Matt.

This is a big rabbit hole, which is why I definitely like to talk because my dad has

almost all of Alan White's library.

So I spent a number of years reading through all the source

materials, along with a number of other materials from people like Dale Ratzlaff, who is another,

well, I mean, he was further in it than I was.

We're talking a fifth generation Seventh Adventist pastor of 30 years in the church was up at the

highest level.

Yeah, he runs a former Adventist fellowship in California.

He was at the general conference level.

So I actually have a quote here.

I'm reading from his book, where he goes through.

Which book is that?

It's, Cultic Doctrine of the Seventh Adventist, an Evangelical Resource, an Appeal to Seventh Adventist Leadership.

Okay, let me go here.

I'm gonna check this out, amazon .com.

Oh, you got everything on Kindle.

I got it 30 years ago.

What's it called?

Cultic Doctrine of Seventh Adventist by Dale Ratzlaff.

Dale Ratzlaff.

I'm gonna read you, but I'm gonna read you the quote.

It's only in paperback.

No, no, no, not paperback.

Yeah, yeah.

I like, I don't want paperback.

I've got too many books as it is.

This thing is a goldmine, dude.

All right, I'll have to get it.

Darn.

So I'm gonna read you a quote, but this is the best systematic layout of

this specific doctrine, because you'll start to see, and Ellen said this herself, she is the central pillar upon

which the Seventh Adventist church rests.

And there are a number, my own grandmother, for example, she lives in California.

She's an Adventist.

I heard her discussing with somebody the last time I was out there, oh, I just don't understand why we can't get rid of the investigative judgment doctrine, because she

doesn't understand the fundamental level that the Seventh Adventist church would essentially be admitting it was a fraud.

It was all a fraud.

This whole thing is built on a fraud.

So here's why.

So he's gonna, well, he says, as we evaluate what took place in early Adventism, we note

the changing nature of quote unquote truth.

So here's the key.

The first angel's message was the truth, quote unquote, that Christ would come in

1843.

That was the Miller prophecy.

The Miller prophecy was that Christ was gonna come in 1843.

So that was the initial truth.

So in the year of 1843, 1844, which is the great disappointment, which most people know about with

Adventism, that hadn't happened yet, they were saying that that was truth, that 1843 was correct.

Really?

So then the second angel's message was the call for the faithful to quote, come out of Babylon,

the churches which rejected the date setting of the Millerites.

This second message was preached simultaneously with the seven month movement, which predicted that Christ would come to the earth

on October 22nd, 1844.

Now using the same prophecies of Daniel 8 .14, coupled with Leviticus 16,

the quote unquote truth, is that Christ, instead of coming to this earth at the close of

the 2 ,300 day prophecy, entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary for the first

time.

Here, Christ was to quote, complete the atonement, which was not complete at

the cross and blot out sins which were not blotted out at the point of repentance and faith.

If I can document that in an official SDA source, that's what I need.

That's the kind of thing.

It was not finished at the cross.

Yep, I can show you that in Ellen White's books over and over and over, because

that is the core of what it's built on.

They have to have the investigative judgment because in a nutshell, without going into all of that,

when 1843 failed, Miller and others admitted, Miller at least humbled himself and said, okay, I was wrong.

My interpretation that I was going for Daniel 7 and my calculations here were off.

There were some people that refused.

Ellen White was in that group, but it wasn't just Ellen and James White.

It was also Hiram Edson, which is a name that you don't often hear about unless you start doing research.

The investigative judgment initially came from Hiram Edson.

It was the day after 1843.

After the failure of 1843, or sorry, sorry, sorry.

It was after, it was October 23rd, 1844.

So the people that refused to accept that Miller was wrong in 1843, Ellen said we forgot to calculate for

the fact that the year zero was there.

So we were probably a year off.

It will actually be 1844.

I'll tell you what, we could talk about this because, you know, reading a lot of stuff, but I am interested in checking this stuff

out.

Maybe what you could do is you can contact me at info .com .org, give me your cell number.

Maybe we can talk and we can get a video, not a video, but a discussion going.

And show me where these documents are.

You've already done a lot of the homework.

That's exactly what I need.

And where does it say it?

I have to verify everything, I have to verify everything.

So, yeah.

I can give you a book, page number, citation, all that stuff.

And you can get all of Ellen White's writings yourself through their app, they're free.

Right, yeah.

So instead of having to buy it all, obviously you can get the EGW app.

But yeah, dangerous stuff, man.

It's, I also too, like the amount of things that are influenced by their pre

-creation narrative that makes its way.

So their whole idea is built around this idea that God is trying to vindicate his character.

The devil lied about him.

And now he's trying to prove himself to his creation that he is who he says he is.

And in order to do that, your pledge and the commitment to the 10 commandments signifies that

you're trusting in who God is in this whole thing.

Well, the reason they say the devil rebelled is because Ellen taught in Desire of Ages that in the pre -creation

narrative, Jesus was elevated to be equal with the father.

That caused the devil to become jealous.

And that's why he rebelled, because he thought it should have been him.

This permeates all of their theology.

That's the core of their vision.

Their idea is that God is trying to vindicate his character and that in doing so, the devil is the adversary.

And then you get into the whole sanctuary doctrine and this idea that Jesus is actually your judge.

And you're gonna have to see him before him.

I'll tell you what, you need to contact me and we're gonna have to have a conversation

because I'd like to do that, okay?

Yeah, sounds good, man.

Okay, what church are you going to now?

I go to a PCA church.

PCA?

Yeah, my wife and I are Presbyterian, actually recent Presbyterian converts.

We were a Reformed Baptist who essentially saw the need to

baptize their babies.

So, the correct -.

Oh, man, I'm liking you even more.

Yeah, so -.

Yeah, I remember -.

A small -.

Oh, good, okay.

Do you know George Grant, by chance?

George who?

George Grant.

No.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, well, that's my pastor.

Yeah, I'm not good with names.

I'm good with numbers, but not names.

Yeah, I'm looking for a PDF or something or downloadable for that book, but can't

find it.

What did you say your email was, Matt?

Just info at CARM .org.

Oh, okay, that's easy.

Yeah, real easy.

All right.

Yeah, because...

Is it the email address that you always say all the time that is like 7 ,000 emails?

No, that's not the one.

Let's see.

Info, let me check which one's how much I got going.

So, I haven't done it for a bit.

So, in info, I only have 23.

Okay, and in Matt at CARM .org, I have 12 ,686.

And that's like a Gmail, I only have 1 ,552.

There's another one I have that's a private one I don't give out to hardly anybody.

I have 277 in there.

Yeah, I've got a lot.

So, yeah.

Well, cool.

Yeah, I'll shoot you an email and let's definitely set up a time to we can go over this stuff and we can go

through, if you'd like, we can point it out and we can go through some of the sources.

Yeah, I need the sources.

I always need sources.

I always need the source because we can go in line, this is where it is.

And then what I'll do is I can write articles and use that information to go, okay, here it is.

Because sometimes I do all my own original research and sometimes most of it, and sometimes

not a whole bunch, it just depends.

And this one, I'm doing a little bit of both.

And people have got documents.

There's so much to read.

There's so much.

So that's why I want everything in Kindle or electronic format.

I could just do searches for words or word phrases.

And then I can just decide, I can learn what they, oh, okay, instead of reading 600 pages, I just don't have time.

So -.

Yeah, well, I mean, in my situation, like I said, I grew up in the Seventh -day

Adventist church, going to a Seventh -day Adventist doctor, Seventh -day Adventist school, Seventh -day Adventist friends, Seventh -day Adventist everything.

And so with my dad being a Seventh -day Adventist pastor, I had to read the

source material myself and try and show the source material alongside scripture and say, hey, look,

here's where these contradict.

Here's where these don't line up.

So yeah, there's a lot.

So -.

That's what I want to say.

That's what you want to go over.

So, cause she had a plethora of writings, so.

Oh yeah, I'm totally open to going through a bunch of stuff.

So, but I got to finish up my COVID research and people are asking for that.

They're calling me on the radio show, asking for more and more on COVID.

And so I'm having to do that as well.

But yeah.

Yeah, all right.

Yeah, you contact me, okay?

Cool, sounds good.

I'll shoot you an email.

All right.

Okay.

Look at this.

I like what Karm M says.

There's not enough hours in the day.

So Karm M, is that your real name, Karm?

Or are you just using Karm?

Just curious.

Yeah, 6 ,500.

Okay.

Let's see.

How's your relationship with your dad, Miles?

That's what he asked.

Oh yeah, good question.

My relationship with my dad is great.

My dad's a bit of an anomaly.

I know that we're not elect detectors, but obviously when you're able to spend this, I mean, we're

talking six, seven, eight hour conversations.

So I'm really able to probe that deep into things.

My dad will say one thing, but then he'll say something else a second later.

It's like, well, hold up that contradicts what you just said.

Like he'll say it's by faith alone in Christ alone, but then we really start drilling down, say 20 minutes later into something

specific about the basic of judgment.

There's something that's like, ooh, well, I mean, no, that's heresy, man.

Like the scapegoat.

Oh, that is heresy.

It's like, oh man.

So my relationship with my dad is good, but I still obviously continue to

try and have those more in -depth conversations.

A little over time.

Yeah, I can teach you some, probably teach you some stuff about other techniques out of reformed theology that'll

help too.

But you already know what you're doing in a lot of areas.

Good.

Carm M, that's her real name apparently.

She worked with Carm.

All right, anybody else wanna come in and ask anything?

I'm gonna quit at the top of the hour just so you know.

Roger's still here.

Miles is still here.

I'm serious.

Info at Carm .org.

Email me, contact me.

Type in as we speak.

Good.

So anybody, let's see.

I assumed you did because of your name, Carm M.

I was gonna, I called Carm.

I don't know what to call it.

I had to invent a website just because I, I'll tell you how Carm got started.

Before the internet was here, back in 93, 94, I was on bulletin boards.

And I still have some of the documents I just saw recently from those printed up

on an old nine pin dot matrix printer.

And I said a lot of stuff.

And then the internet came out and it was a dial up on a phone.

And you know, you get in on a 13 inch monitor.

It was, oh, wow.

So anyway, excuse me.

So people started asking me questions.

You know, I'd already been doing apologetics for years.

Well, here's a, so I started having to retype my same answers out.

Then I started keeping them in a file.

And then I had to cut and paste all these things.

I thought, you know what?

I've heard these things called webpages exist.

So I wonder if I could make a webpage, just put the answers up and just say, here, here, there you go.

And that's all.

It was just a temporary whatever I could put.

And so that was the idea.

And so I did.

And if you want to see, oh man, you want to see the

early versions of Carm, I think I'll show you because it's embarrassingly bad.

Let's see.

I'll put a URL in here.

You can go check it out.

It goes back to 98.

Let's see if it has a look.

And if it does, I'll put, this is on the Wayback Machine.

I'll put a link in and you guys can go check it out because I designed it all myself.

I had to teach myself.

Oh, it's embarrassing.

Here it comes.

I had to teach myself how to do it all.

I had to teach myself how to do HTML, upload, FTP.

I had to learn all kinds of stuff.

And this is what I designed.

This is what I came up with.

This is the first real version of Carm.

When it started, it'd been up a year or two already, or two or three, I think at that point.

And this is the earliest the Wayback Machine goes back.

And so that was one of the earliest.

It's like two years old.

And you guys can check it out.

And when you're done throwing up, you can come back and mock it.

But anyway, so that's how Carm got started.

And I was thinking about different names.

Carm.

I thought, well, what about Christian Research Apologetics People?

But I thought the acronym wouldn't be good.

Christian Research Apologetics People.

That's not gonna work.

Or Christian Research Apologetics Ministry, CRAM.

Hang on, crap or cram.

And I had some other ones.

And no, those aren't gonna work.

So I came up with this thing called CARM.

Christian Apologetics Research.

But that's good enough.

And that was it.

And registered it.

And there you go.

So ask Montero to ask to enter.

Ask Alex to enter.

Wait, wait, let me get the URL back here.

If you wanna come in here and blab.

You got that, Ace.

Christian Research Apologetics People.

Christian, what is it?

Christian Research Ultimate Department.

It was another one I was thinking about.

But that didn't work out either.

So anyway, I had ideas.

But called it that.

CARM is perfect.

Yeah, CARM is good.

And it's easy to remember.

So it's in October.

October 25th, it will be 26 years old.

How about that?

And it's had 146 million visitors.

I actually have, it's a pretty accurate number.

It's probably off, I'd say maybe half a percent.

We had to get some early numbers.

I had to retroactively go in years ago and extrapolate the rates and stuff like that.

And I did it as accurately as I could.

And so right now, we've had 80 million

return visitors.

We've had 147 million new visitors and 227 million page views.

How about that?

So I keep graphs on everything.

I used to teach advanced Excel.

So I know how to do a lot of really cool things in Excel.

And I have these nice, all kinds of nice stuff.

So, all right, nobody has any questions?

Any comments or questions you wanna ask then?

I was hoping the anti -Calvinist would come in and challenge me, call me names and stuff.

Yeah, they don't really show up too much.

Okay, so Ace says maybe he could be persuaded about

continuationism.

Okay, here, watch this.

Let's go here.