Open Theism Debate Aftershow, 3/1/2024

😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍� 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍� 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍

Oh, I'm a Christian. Good. And you're not an open theist? Oh, no, no.

I believe, I mean, I believe that God, you know, knows everything. They believe that God doesn't know everything, right?

They believe that he knows things, but he doesn't know your free will choices. This guy was so inconsistent in his own stuff.

So what'd you, did you watch it? Uh, nah, I kinda just got in at the end. You what?

Nah, I kinda just got in at the end when y 'all were doing questions. Yeah, let's just say, uh,

I would call it a dumpster fire. And, uh, that my opponent was incapable of debating logically, critically, and addressing the issues.

He avoided questions repeatedly. I asked him stuff about scripture, and then he would say, you're just interpreting it.

I would just read and then ask a question based on exactly what it said, repeating it.

And he couldn't even address that. I mean, it was, it was horrible. Well, what was interesting is if you would have, you didn't get to do this a lot, but if you were to stick in the scriptures and stick in the passages, like, you know, when you're out there preaching or sharing the gospel, you're evangelizing, when you go in the context and you go through the scriptures, if you were to do that, he would probably just keep pushing back.

I mean, he was already pushing back on the minimal scriptures, you know, just not in the whole context that you were giving.

But, you know, if you were to kept going through that, he's just going to jump around and go all over the place.

And he sees it through his presuppositional, you know, open theist lens, you know, through that presupposition.

And it's just, you can't see anything else. Yeah. Yeah. It was, it was bad.

It really was. Um, yeah. It was horrible.

Did you notice that he had a script he was going from with all his insults and assertions and innuendos?

He was reading it. And mocking. Yeah. He had that prepared. He had been, he'd prepared himself for his mocking, uh, line of whatever.

Gosh, I'm having a hard time remaining G rated. Anyway, I'll be right back. But that's what

I was wondering. It was just a thing to bait you, you know? Like someone asked a question, uh,

Chris, are you actually an atheist that's trolling Matt? That was one of the questions that was asked in the chat.

Someone actually thought that. And I thought he might've been inebriated a little bit because the drinking game, he seemed very like, he didn't seem very focused.

He seemed kind of out of it. I mean, I don't know, but I'm just saying just the way he was acting and getting egged on by the guys in the chat, like, uh,

Warren McGrew and them, you know, I didn't really. He sucked.

And open theism sucks canal water. Well, yeah. And it eventually, like we were talking,

I mean, I don't know how you could, uh, be a Christian and hold to open theism and continue to be a

Christian. If that makes sense. Like there's no, you might be ignorant, but if you keep holding onto it, it's just going to lead, like you said, heresy upon heresy.

Eventually you're going to just deny the faith. You're going to say, oh, Jesus isn't God. Uh, he never created the world.

Uh, he didn't write the Bible. That's eventually where this thing is going to take you. I would, I would, it's literally a danger that I would warn young men against if they start flirting with it or start listening to guys who just like full preterism, same type of thing.

I would, I'd be warning against that stuff. Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. So, uh, come on in truth defender. Come on in, put the link. So Matt, I missed the beginning.

How was the state when you guys did your 20 minutes back and forth, how was it? Was it pretty, you know, chill civil?

It didn't really get kind of. To be honest, he started off by writing a statement. He was insulting and condescending right away.

Oh, I see. So I didn't see that. Yeah. Yeah. And, uh, then he accused me of being a liar and, and I'm like, what?

And then he said, this is what Matt thinks. And I'm like, what? He did this several times. And then he was called poisoning in the well.

Matt's going to say this. And then that's why it's not true. And it's what he said. And they said, Matt's going to cause do the fallacy of poisoning in the well.

And yet he was doing that. Wow. I had to tell

Marlon, could you tell him to not insult me? But it was ridiculous.

And I just decided at one point I said, you know what? I'm not gonna let this guy, uh, Even look like he's winning.

I'm just going to, I'm going to just make sure he just looks bad. Yeah. Get on him. And I'm going to ask questions. I'm going to just hold his feet to the fire.

And I did. And, uh, he, he blew it. He just looked bad. And you know, so, so much for that stinking heresy of open theism.

Did you hear Marlon at the end of the show, Matt? I don't care about Marlon.

Well, he, he was sure defending you and he kicked somebody out and banned him.

Oh, he did. Okay. Marlon's a good guy. Yeah. He's a good guy. Yeah. That guy, he, I mean, he said some messed up stuff basically towards you and your situation.

Cause, uh, you know, I mean, when you talked about, you know, about your son and stuff, I mean, you know, that really, you know, that made me feel very strongly.

Like, you know, I definitely have sympathy for you, even though obviously I'm not like a big fan of your doctrine.

And, you know, I'm definitely more towards like, uh, you know, like Anabaptist. So, you know, I would definitely tell you that like, that your child was not guilty, not a sinner.

Then why was it affected by sin? Why did sin come upon him and the fall and his, his deformity?

Cause it was a birth defect. Why would that be? The only thing they could say is that it happened to my wife or my seed in the combo.

And then he was affected by that. But if that's the case, then we get into headship, which means this sin's transferred down and the effect of it goes down.

And so there's no way out of this. And so, uh, you know, it's a, it's a serious issue.

I mean, I can see where you're coming from, but like, I mean, do you believe that like an infant has its own personal sins or is it just guilty of Adam's sin?

Guilty of Adam's sin for sure. But you see, there's, there's some debate about this. What does it mean?

I personally believe that all babies that die go to heaven. I don't believe that. Yeah. I don't believe that way.

Oh, you know, I believe they have sin because you're here to think about this. The right thing to do is worship and praise

God. Are babies doing that? Well, no. So are they sinning?

It's kind of hard to say they are because, well, they really can't do that. But then again, you go to Psalm 22 verse nine, where it says,

God didn't make me believe why my mother's breast. Yeah. So he does that to the babies.

Okay. So you see, it's just not that easy to say this. And then you go to first Corinthians 15, 22 in Adam all die.

And then for Ephesians 2, 11, 2, 3, uh, we are all by nature.

We were children of wrath. That's our nature. We're born that way. Romans 5, 19 says, uh, through the sin of the one, the many were made sinners, were made sinners is aorist passive indicative in the

Greek. That's important because it means that, that we were made sinners by what

Adam did. That's what it's saying. And so when I show this to people and I go, what do you do with this?

Most people just deny the scriptures, but I see that's what it says. And so for someone to say babies are born innocent is problematic.

Because of all of this, we might be able to say that they don't have any actual sin they've committed, but we could not say they did not have any fallen nature or sinfulness because they were in Adam and Adam and the sin of the one.

Everybody went here. Let me put the verse in. I'm going to put the verse in. I'll teach a little bit here. Okay. So when

I talk like this, people, what they'll often do is just stop listening after one statement.

No, no. Hear it out. Hear me out. But they don't want to do that. But look in the text here.

All right. This is what Romans 5 .19 says. For as through the one man's disobedience, that's

Adam's sin. The many were made sinners. Even so through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous.

What's interesting about this. I could teach on this for a while. Is that in this area of scripture, Paul does this weird thing where he uses the same word or phrase to mean two different things in the same sentences.

He does this. Like I'll go to Romans 5 .18 and show it to you. And then I'll go back to Romans 5 .19

just to show you this is what's happening. Romans 5 .18. I know this verse very, very well. As through one transgression, there resulted condemnation to all men.

Even so through one act of righteousness, there resulted justification of life to all men. All men.

The first all men is everybody who ever lived. They're sinful, except for Jesus, of course. And the second one, all men is justified, but that's only the believers.

So Paul does this. He does it elsewhere there. So what I'm trying to show is that don't just go.

I tell people, don't just go. That's what he means. And then you're done. You're done thinking. Don't do that.

Look at what it says. And so you go to verse 19. For as through one man's disobedience, that's

Adam's sin. The many were made sinners. Well, who's the many? That's everybody, except Jesus, of course, were made sinners.

Even so through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous.

Does that mean everybody? No, because in Mark 3 .29, Matthew 25 .46,

Revelation 14 .11, 20 .10, people go to hell. I'll show you something else.

Watch this. I'm going to show you something. Hey, I'm going to use you, Jacob, as a sounding board. I'm going to try and trick you without tricking you.

Okay? Nothing malicious here. All right. You ready? Would you agree with me that whenever the

Bible says that anybody has died to sin, it's a believer? Died to themselves, it's a believer.

Died with Christ, it's a believer. Not unbelievers, right? Yeah, it's not unbelievers.

Okay, good. I would agree with you. 2 Corinthians 5 .14, I'm going to paste it in here. Check this out.

This verse is really interesting. It says this, For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Who's the all who died? Believers.

The believers. So if we say the believers would say he died for the believers, therefore the believers died, that makes sense.

If we say he died for the unbelievers, therefore the unbelievers died, that makes no sense. When you start looking at what the

Bible says, too many people like these open theist guys, they stop thinking.

It's just right there. It's just right there that God had to learn. It just means he learned. That's all it means.

Can't be anything else. They stop their thinking. Well, what do you do?

Let's work with that position. So God doesn't know their hearts? He has to learn what's in their hearts? Well, wait a minute.

The open theist says that God's in the heart. Well, will he know their hearts? Well, yeah. When I asked the questions, nobody answered it because they see a logical contradiction in their position.

They didn't get an answer because they can't because their position is unbiblical. So God, there's 2 million

Jews, and God's got to test them to find out what's in their heart. But on the other hand, the open theist will say

God knows everything in the present exhaustively. That must mean he knows their hearts. Well, you can't have it both ways, now can you?

You can't have it that he knows all their hearts, yet he has to find out what's in their hearts by testing them. It makes no sense.

And when you ask them the question, they stop thinking again. They go off someplace else, like this guy did tonight, just off a different direction.

So what he said, you know, well, God wasn't in their hearts or something like that. Oh, well, then

I had to ask, well, is he everywhere? And notice what he did. He avoided that question. Is he everywhere?

Well, not in the believer's heart, so I forgot exactly what he said. I'm not trying to misrepresent him. But the implication was, no, he's not everywhere.

Oh. So then if he's not everywhere, is there another

God out there? If he's not everywhere, are people existing someplace he doesn't know about?

If he's not everywhere, then how could he know the hearts of individuals, as open theists say? If he's not everywhere, is he?

They don't think because they have a stupid false God philosophy. Now, because of this discussion tonight,

I am more convinced that open theism is a serious heresy. And I'm not going to say all open theists aren't

Christians, but I'm going to say this, that, man, I'll tell you, they got one foot in the pit.

I don't know if they're saved or not saved, but this is a serious issue. Serious, serious, serious issue.

You know, Matt, did they deny original sin? Did they say that?

It appears to be. Because Muslims deny original sin, too. Yeah, yes.

But it appears that this guy did, and he's Pelagian, that babies don't have any sin.

What? It's just humanistic philosophy. Hey, Fred Beal, come on, buddy, get in there.

I'm being outgoing. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Hey, Matt.

Hey, I talk to you sometimes on the big screen. My name's Cornbread Fred. Oh, hey.

Hey, my buddy. How you doing, man? What's up? Hey, what kind of a thing do you have?

Do you have the Quest 2? Yeah, I have the same one. Yeah, I'm going to get it.

I want a 3, because it's better, but I'll get one later. Yeah, I got it. Yeah, you got it.

Anyway, I just want to say, I think his biggest problem is he's unable to harmonize the text.

Yeah. He has to abandon any text that you bring up with the guy that shows that God is all -knowing or that he's all -powerful or that he's in control of everything.

He just goes back to these texts that seem to limit God. I'm actually the one that asked that question at the end about Calvin's view of accommodation and condescension.

It's not really a problem once you realize that man and God are wholly distinct from each other and wholly distinct in such a way that for us to even obtain any knowledge about God, God has to condescend to us.

God has to speak to us almost as children or as babies. He has to accommodate his language so we can comprehend it.

That's what's going on. So he's taking all these texts that talk about theology from below, us trying to understand

God from down here being limited human beings, and he's trying to elevate that to theology from above, trying to elevate it to the transcendent realm instead of where it's meant to be down here in the imminent realm.

Anytime you point to a text that is transcendent, that is talking about God as God in and of himself, he has to ignore it because he's already made the imminent text which is problematic.

He even went so far as to mock it and say, oh, well, God's got to reduce himself to baby talk, you know.

Well, yeah, that is harmonization. What do you do when you have texts that say

God's all -knowing and then you have God speaking to us over here in a limited way? Obviously he's speaking to us in a limited way because we are not transcendent, we are not divine, so he has to speak to us as creatures, right?

But he's unable to do that because he's unable to harmonize the text. He's completely ignoring all the texts that Matt brought up that speak of God as God himself.

A couple of his buddies jumped on the fact that Matt said the ultimate anthropomorphism is

Jesus Christ himself, and they mocked that to high heaven when the scripture says it is

Jesus who the actual word is exegetes. Okay, no man has seen

God. The Son has revealed him. It's the word exegete. He's brought him out.

He's seen and understood. It's the very thing they should not be mocking.

Well, that's what I kept saying. I want to say, because before I get too far off what Fred said, you talked about God being wholly other.

Get this. This is what he, my opponent, said in the article, What Is Open Theism, and he said in the comment section, he was talking to somebody.

Yes. And he said, quote, The Bible describes God as personal and relational. God is not immutable or wholly other.

Wow. A heresy. Let me just say one more thing. That's the root of all heresy.

All heresy seeks to bring God down to man and elevate man up to God. That's essentially what

Mormonism is. I'm not saying he's Mormon, but that's what Mormonism is at its root. It's bringing God down to man.

He's a literal man. He's been exalted to Godhood, but he's a man, and bringing man up to Godhood. I can be exalted.

And that's exactly what he's doing. He's limiting God. So the transcendent God is bringing him down and making him only eminent, which brings up, because now we're on the same level as God.

He's not other. We are essentially the same being. He's spiritual and I'm physical, but we're the same. Well, what

I said in my, I think it was my opening statement. I said, ultimately, or I said it someplace. Ultimately, because of man's freedom, therefore,

God's sovereignty depends in part on man's sovereignty. And so this is the basis.

I believe that they have a man -centered theology, because man's will has to be free. Therefore, God can't everything else.

It's humanistic philosophy, and he doesn't even see it. And it was annoying. He kept saying, well, it's just Platonism.

It's Platonism. It's just philosophy. It's like, dude, you don't even know what Platonism is. You don't even know what free will is.

And Brad, did you hear what he said about Jesus and the two natures and that the human nature became the divine nature?

No, I didn't know that. No, here's the thing, too. Two things. These guys always say, they always use the philosophy attack against real

Christians, guys who are defending the truth. The heretics always use the philosophy tactic. You're just spitting out philosophy.

You're just spitting out philosophy. It's over and over like that. And then another thing is, this is basic systematic theology.

If you study systematic theology, I mean, all this is included in that. And it's like they don't go to that at all.

They just go to whatever guy they're following at the time and what they're saying, and they might sound smart.

They follow man instead of just the organized, systematic theology, the theology of the

Bible, theology proper. They're going to whatever someone is saying who they think might be smarter than them instead of just going to what we've known for 2 ,000 years, which is

Christianity. So, I mean, that's really what it comes. I kept saying that. I'm like, this is just basic.

The anthropomorphic that Sean Griffin guy gets hung up with that. He says everything's literal. And this guy got hung up with, you said condescension, right?

What? Me? Condescension, right? Well, yeah, condescension. I mean, this goes back to,

I mean, this is scriptural, but Van Till talks about this a lot, the creator -creature distinction.

God is transcendent, and we are eminent. So how do we get to the transcendent?

How do we get in touch with God? The only way is for God to come to us. That's why the incarnation is necessary.

That's Hebrews 2, right? Yeah. Yeah, man. Hey, well, Matt, I'm glad that you don't believe in infant damnation.

But can I just ask you about what I was talking about in the chat real quick? Sure. Yeah, so are you familiar with Lorraine Botner?

Lorraine Bettner, yes. Yeah, Bettner, that's what I meant to say. Yeah. Have you heard the quote that says,

A man is not saved because he believes in Jesus. He believes. No, sorry. A man is not saved because he believes in Jesus.

He believes in Jesus because he is saved. Yes. What do you think?

Do you agree with that? Yes, but there's a little bit of explanation that needs to go in there.

Okay. And so I'm going to introduce you to logical versus temporal priority.

Okay. I don't know if you've heard me talk about this. So I'm going to use an exaggeration of a light bulb.

So temporal priority, flip the switch. Five seconds later, light comes on in the light bulb.

Okay. So we know it's instantaneous, but this is an illustration. So this is called temporal priority.

There's a cause. There's this period of time later, and then there's an event. That's called temporal priority.

So in this case, electricity is the cause of light temporally, and that there's a distance between them.

And as far as cause and effect time, I just use five seconds as an example. Now, there's a problem here, because let's just say that regeneration and believing, regeneration and faith.

Let's just say that you're regenerate for five seconds before you believe, because the standard view of Christianity today, they haven't done their deep thinking on this, is that you believe if regeneration precedes faith or faith precedes regeneration.

I'll work with both. So if regeneration precedes faith, five seconds later you believe, then you have a regenerate person who's not a believer for a period of time.

That's problematic. So let's just reverse it. So five, you believe first, and then five seconds later you become regenerate.

Now you have a believer who's not regenerate for a period of time, and that's problematic. So this is just illustrating the problem with temporal priority.

Now let's look at logical priority. Flip a switch, electricity goes into the bulb, and both are in the bulb simultaneously, electricity and light.

Now technically speaking, there's a few super micro milliseconds difference, but the illustration here is that they go in, they occur at the same time.

Now what we would say is that someone's typing. Okay. You know

I'm autistic and I have, yeah, okay. And so what we say is that in logical priority, the electricity and the light are simultaneous, but it's the electricity that causes the light.

It's not the light that causes the electricity, but they're both half at the same time. So in reformed theology, regeneration is logically prior to faith.

So he regenerates you and you believe, but you freely believe, but it occurs at the same time with regeneration.

So there's no problem. So do you actually believe? Yes. Does God regenerate you? Yes. That's what the difference is.

I forgot what the question was, but that's important. So wait,

I'm kind of confused. Like, is there a point in which like a man believes or no, sorry. Is there a point in which, because regeneration is synonymous with born again, right?

Yes. I would say at this point, yes. Okay. So is there a point in time where a man is regenerated and born again, yet he's still not saved because he's, okay.

So you said that it only logically precedes it, but temporally it does happen at the same time.

Yes. Now let me mess you up even more. Okay. In Colossians 2 .14,

it says, let me do this, back up to Ephesians 1 .4. He, the father, chose us, the elect in him,

Jesus, before the foundation of the world. So the election of individuals in Christ is before the foundation of the world,

Ephesians 1 .4. Jesus says in John 6 .37 that he came to do the will of the father.

I mean, John 6 .38. But in 37, he says, all that the father gives me will come to me.

They're chosen by the father, given to the son. In Colossians 2 .14,

you got to pay attention to this. Okay. Colossians 2 .14, it says, Jesus canceled out the certificate of debt, the sin debt, having knelt to the cross.

He canceled it out at the cross. The sin debt is not canceled when you believe.

Did you get that, Jacob? Yeah. It's not canceled when you believe. The efficacy of the cross is not made powerful by what you do.

It's made powerful by what God did. So the necessity here is that Jesus canceled the sin debt at the cross.

Who did he cancel it for? Everybody? If that's the case, everybody has to go to heaven because there's no sin debt anymore.

It's at anybody. That makes no sense. So what we have to say is that the all is limited, just like I showed you.

Remember earlier I showed you how the word all is limited, right? So God has elected people to salvation.

Christ came to redeem them. He bore their sin in his body on the cross, 1 Peter 2 .24.

And that's when the sin debt of the elect is canceled. Then God infallibly brings them into belief,

Acts 13 .48. As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. And it says that you're born again not of your own will,

John 1 .13. And it says in Philippians 1 .29, it says that God grants that you believe.

So if people want to say, well, I can believe in my own free will. The unbelievers, it's their own free will.

If that's the case, then why is it that God must grant individuals belief? You cannot come to me unless it's granted to you from the

Father. That's what Jesus says, John 6 .65. So Jesus came to redeem them.

So let me put it together. God elected people in the Trinity, in the Trinitarian communion.

God elected people to save, gave them to the Son. The Son became one of us, redeemed them, and bore their sin debt.

Died on the cross, rose from the dead. Later, God grants that you have faith, and that's when you're justified.

That's when you're cleansed of your sins. And that's when you're born again. God's sovereign.

Yeah, do you still have like some kind of understanding about like, you know, that people can like freely come to him?

I mean, I think there's a, I can't remember. You know where these verses are.

Oh, man. Sorry. Like Revelation, where it says, like anyone who is a thirst, like come to him and stuff like that.

Sorry, I was distracted by a theorist who said spooky action at a distance, which is what Einstein said about quantum entanglement.

But I just thought it was funny. Sorry, so I was distracted because it was a witty comment, and I had to respond to it.

So I say it again, Jacob, I'm sorry. Oh, we lose him.

Oh, I guess he hit himself. We lost him. Okay, so in a word, what would you guys say the debate was like?

One word. You can use hyphenated words. You can use hyphenated words.

I can use hyphenated words. That means just two. One word or two as a hyphenation.

How about heresy? Heresy. That's right. Dumpster fire is what

I'm thinking. Yeah, I was thinking dumpster fire. I was thinking unfortunately educational.

Can I do combustible? Yeah. I would say his view was what we would call stupidification.

Yeah. Train wreck. There's another one.

Oh, yeah, I was just wondering, do you still have some kind of understanding of people still freely coming to him?

I think there's a verse in Revelation that says anyone who is a thirst, come to him.

You know what I'm saying? Yeah, those are in Revelation. He's talking to the seven churches, and I've been to each of the seven church locations in Turkey.

And so he's talking to them generically, and the angels that are there, whoever's there, whoever's thirsty, come.

Okay, whoever. Well, does that mean everyone can? Now, here's the question.

Like in John 3 .16, God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son that whoever would believe in him would not perish.

All right. Well, first of all, the word whoever is not in the Greek. That's the Greek word hos. It's not there.

What is there is pos hapus tuon, all the believing one. We don't talk like that.

So they say whoever. And that's good enough. So let's just, okay, whoever believes. People will say what that means is you have the free will choice inside of your sinfulness to be able to believe.

Where does it say that? Where does it say that? They're reading into the text.

I would ask, well, why do they believe? Because it's their free will choice. Then why does the

Bible say that the unbeliever cannot receive the things of God for their foolishness to him? First Corinthians 2 .14.

If they can just come with their own free will, then why does Jesus say that to you, you can only come to me if it's granted you from the father?

So the idea of whoever just means anybody who has a free will choice doesn't work. So we have to ask, who are the whoever who come to Christ?

They're the ones granted repentance. Second Timothy 2 .25. Granted faith.

Philippians 1 .29. And granted to come to Christ. John 6 .25. Whoever believes.

Well, why are they believing? See, look, if I have a deck of cards.

And there's 52 people, 52 cards. And I take and I mark five cards with an

X. Shuffle them. Pass them out to individuals. And I say, whoever has the

X can come with me in the private jet for the trip to the Bahamas. Well, that means they have the free will choice, doesn't it?

No. Whoever is the one who has that can do it. Whoever believes is the one who does it.

Because God grants that they believe. You see? Okay. Well, let me ask just one more question.

Let's see. In Acts 17. Yeah. Where is that part in Acts 17?

In Acts 17 it says that God is now commanding all men everywhere to repent.

Acts 17 .30. Yeah. Do you believe that when he says he's commanding all men everywhere to repent, is that he's commanding just the elect to repent?

That's a good question. I'm going to trick you a little bit again. Would God ever tell someone to do something they can't do?

I want to say no, but I might be missing something. Because you know

I'm talking to you, so now you're suspicious. Yeah. And that's a smart move. You should be suspicious.

So, be holy for I am holy. 1 Peter 1 .16.

Can we be holy? Well, I mean, I think people are called holy like there's holy brethren.

No, no, no. There's holy men, holy women. Be holy. Yeah. They can be called holy. They can be called these in the sense that they're doing human level good stuff.

But this is a comparison to God's nature. Be holy for I'm holy. Oh, just as God is holy.

Okay, I see. Yeah. The standard now is God. So, the answer is well, no. How about Matthew 5 .42

-48 where God causes the sun to rise on the good and the bad. All right. So, I'm going to be perfect?

Be perfect because your Father in heaven is perfect. Can you be perfect? No. So, yes,

God will. And I'll give you a reason why. God will ask you to do things that you can't do.

People are going to say, well, that's not fair. And I'm going to say to them that what you're doing is you're saying

God will only do and allow what you can do. The standard is you, you and your freedom, not

God's nature. Who's the standard? God. So, he will require that you be perfect.

And you can't? He knows it. So, Jesus does it for you. He'll require you to be holy.

But you can't. He never negates the standard. He doesn't lower the standard for us.

This is humanist philosophy that does this. That's what these guys do in open theism. They're humanist philosophers who lower

God's standard to their own level. They exalt themselves. They're pagans. It's paganism.

All right? It's Christian humanism. So, yes, God will require things that you cannot do because he's a standard.

Now, let me ask you another trick -ish question. Is this what you say free will is? You have two choices, good and bad.

You can do good. You can do bad. No one's forcing you to do either one. And there's no forcing.

Just whatever. You have an equal option. And you can choose to do either one. And you choose to do good or you can choose to do bad.

That's what free will is. Would you agree? Yeah. Yeah, that's right. All right.

Now, the reason that's a problem is because it means that God doesn't have free will.

What I just did was try and illustrate that what people will automatically do is judge truth based on themselves.

We all do it. Okay? I'm just exposing it. Of course, that's what it means to be able to do good and bad.

Well, then that's a definition of free will. Then God doesn't have free will because he can't choose between good and bad.

And he can do either one. He can only do what's good. So I try and show people you just committed

Christian humanistic philosophical assumptions. I'm not saying, oh, you're a pagan. You're stupid.

You know, we just have to get out of this. So what we want to do is define free will related to God.

So free will is the ability to make a choice. It's not forced. That's consistent with your nature. God's holy.

He'll only choose holy things. What I'm trying to show is the illustration that what people often do is they judge truth based upon themselves.

Ultimately, this is idolatry. The reason it's ultimately idolatry is because God is a standard of holiness, righteousness, purity, truth.

Not us. And so what this heretic did tonight, I'm going to show it to you.

What this heretic did tonight, and yes, he is a flaming heretic.

Because what he said was, let's see, find it.

Where he said, come on, hold on a second. Where he said this, oh,

I'm losing the flow. Abraham. Okay, God adopts Abraham's higher standard.

That is blasphemy. Because what that is saying, that blasphemous piece of crap from hell, that teaching it is.

What he's saying here is that God is now no longer the ultimate standard of truth and righteousness.

But now God adopts a higher standard of morality. That's what he was saying. It's foolishness.

Or God will often do things against his better judgment. So now we don't have the

God of the Bible who's supreme, who knows all things, who never makes mistakes. We have a

God who goofs. A God who goes, oh, my goodness, plan B, plan C, plan D.

Who adopts a better moral standard than his own thought. This is asininity and it's friggin' heresy. This guy's a heretic.

I had to call him out on it. I said, you're a heretic. And he is a heretic for teaching this stuff. They said they drink every time you say that.

When you call someone a heretic, that's when they take a drink. And they need to drink because that's what the

Bible is. The Bible tells them. It tells them that this is not the standard. They're asinine heretics who want to mock the idea of God's greatness and sovereignty.

Then when I point out, take a drink, mocking we will drink. That's exactly what he's doing.

When God is promoted as being profoundly holy and that we can't rely, take a drink.

They are gluttonous stupidifiers. They want their own heresy. They want to stuff themselves with heresies and man -centered philosophies.

And then say, but you're the philosopher. We read God. We read the scripture plainly. Really? Really do you?

That is funny. Isn't there a proverb that talks about let us drink, let us be merry. Isn't there a proverb like that?

Yeah. It's funny. They were the epitome of that tonight. With their drinking thing. Isn't it so weird when you see things like in actuality that are in the scriptures like that?

Oh yeah. And you got to also notice what he did by poisoning the well. You see, he opened up, which

I couldn't believe some of the things he said. And in fact, let me get back to it. Let's see.

Where's his opening statement? I still, oh go ahead.

That's all right. Yeah. So here we go. Chris attacked my Calvinism and showed me he doesn't know it very well.

But our debate is not about Calvinism. He was condescending. He tried to poison the well. Accused me of it, yet he was doing it.

Accused me of Platonism. But he didn't even know what that was. He said I lied when speaking to Duffy.

He said I'm a Platonist that comes from Plato's work. Like I said, he didn't even know. I would have hoped that he would have presented his texts.

He did a little bit, but not really. And he asked the listeners to be careful about what I say.

Okay. And he was begging the question fallacy. He actually said to the listener, now be careful what he says.

It's like, dude, stick with the argument. I think Marlon should have said, dude, don't talk like that.

But it's ridiculous. He also accused you of deceiving by way of bait and switch.

Yeah, that's right. There you go. Matt, would you consider yourself a classical theist?

Yes, in that sense, yeah. Okay, in that sense. But not like some of the scholarly guys way out there?

I don't know. Because there's a variety of meaning in that.

So I would say go to my Statement of Faith. Read that. And that's what I will do. Because I was just saying that.

Because I think those scholarly guys, I think you could probably accuse them of Platonism at times more so than you.

You know what Platonism is? It's just the teachings of Plato, is it not?

Yeah. What did Plato teach? Yeah. There's a realm of Platonic ideas out there.

And you have to get in contact with the realm of Platonic ideas. And it deals with the issue of the one and the many.

Oh, I see. The Platonic stuff is. I wasn't talking Platonism. It has to do with the nature of truth and how you perceive things based upon abstract objects which exist out there.

And we come in contact with them. And then how that works out in the real world. That's Platonism. Look it up.

Wait, would Platonism, would it affirm the one or the many? Well, they probably would affirm the one.

I don't know. I'm not a scholar in that. But that's basically what Platonism is and does. He just didn't know.

Yeah. I think they just use it as an insult against you basically. You know? Yeah. It's a rug they sweep everything under.

Platonism. Philosophy. I don't care what your thinking is. I don't care what your logic is. I'm just going to dismiss it automatically.

I'm not going to examine what you say because I have a big Platonist philosophy rug. Whatever you say,

I'll just sweep underneath the rug. See? I made it go away. That's what they're doing. Yeah.

They take that verse. What's the verse where Paul says don't let philosophy captivate you?

They take that verse. Colossians 2 .8. I'm going to go check on my wife. I'll keep talking. Yeah. They rip it out of context and then they attach it to anyone that disagrees with them.

Especially Trinitarians for some reason. They think all the Trinitarians are philosophers.

Oh man. Yeah. When he started saying

Matt was being Platonic, I thought that was hilarious because obviously he doesn't know Matt Slick.

Matt Slick is a presuppositionalist. You can't be a Platonic presuppositionalist. It's a contradiction in terms.

Yeah. That's true. Platonism would side with the one over the many. The whole idea of Plato is that what's really real are those ideal forms out there.

The ideal is what's real. Everything down here is just an example of what that real thing is.

The idea of chairness is what's really real. The concept of chairness is real.

This specific chair, this isn't what's real. What's real is the idea of chairness.

It's the unifying principles of reality. That's Plato. Aristotle is the opposite.

Aristotle says what's really real is this specific chair. This chair that's black. This chair that has wheels.

This chair that can hold my fat body on it. These accidents are what's really real.

The concept, that's abstraction. What's amazing about the

Christian worldview is the Christian worldview says both of you are wrong. It's neither one nor the many.

What is ultimate is God who is one and many. He is one and three. His oneness is not more ultimate than his threeness.

His threeness is not more ultimate than his oneness. The largest problem in the history of philosophy, the only worldview that actually answers that problem is

Trinitarian Christianity. Absolutely. We'll see. When you explain it, it's so much easier to understand when this other guy,

Matt Slick, explains it. Matt touches on Satanism in that article

I just posted, what is reality. He goes through some of these ideas. That's one of them.

He gives a little capsule of what it is. No, I was just joking. I think it's just you have to hear it so many times.

You do. He actually was clearer. No, Fred was clearer than I was. The ultimate nature of thing is the one.

That's what truth is. But that's a problem because then you have everything being one substance. And then how do you have distinction between objects?

And then you don't have coherence and you have truth values. And it's really a problem. Aristotle went the other way. No, what is real is the things that we sit in and touch.

But if that's the case, then how do you have unification between those objects? Can I say one more thing real quick?

Just one more thing on this? This isn't just an abstraction. This isn't just an abstract thought experiment.

This is actually applicable in life. So you actually cannot do anything in life without having a foundation on this concept.

So, for example, logic itself demands this. What is logic? Yes. Hey, Fred, I'm liking you.

Go ahead. Matt, we talk all the time on big screen. No, I don't look like my avatar in there.

Anyway, logic itself is what? It's universal formulations. All A's are

B's. Universal formulas. And also specific application.

All men are mortal. So how do you have logic? If you don't have both a justification for universal formulation, all

A's are B's, and particular application of those formulations, all men are mortal.

Any worldview that sides with the one has no justification for application. Any worldview that sides with the many has no justification for formulation, universal formulation.

Trinitarianism is the only way out of this dilemma. So you don't have logic if you don't have the trinity.

Absolutely. It's necessary. Same thing with ethics. You can't believe in ultimate unity and believe in ethics.

What's ethics? Good and bad. Where does bad come from in a universe that's unified, purely unified?

So things like this. The doctrine of the trinity is absolutely necessary, not just textually, which of course it is, but logically.

To even function in this world, you have to be a Trinitarian. That's why Paul in Romans 1 says you deny that you're suppressing the truth of God and unrighteousness.

You know this God. You have to function in this world because it's a Trinitarian world.

Amen. Amen, brother. Let me say real quick. Go ahead. But hey,

Matt, it's good talking to you. It's been nice talking to you. Yeah, maybe sometime I'll come back on, press you a little bit more.

Sure. Maybe teach you on infant baptism. Sure, no problem. But yeah, it's good to meet you.

Nice meeting you too, man. God bless. God bless you. Have a good night. Wait. While he was talking, really quickly,

I put a thing in there. I would like to have a debate with an open theist on this topic. Can the God of open theism provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility?

That would be a good debate. That would be interesting. And that was my next question. If you had – well, this is my next thought.

If you had no trinity, you have no creation, correct? You have no what? If there is no trinity, there is no creation.

Well, yes. Necessarily so, because only God created. And God's a trinity.

So without the trinity, God couldn't create, right? I mean, wouldn't exist, right? Yeah. Can I throw something in there?

You wouldn't have creation the way you have it right now. For sure. Logically speaking.

Logically speaking. But also just the way that we are. The scriptures say that we are made in the image of God.

What does that mean? We're made in the image of God. It means that we are expressions of his very nature, right?

We share some of his divine attributes. What are called communicable attributes in systematic theology.

So we share some of his attributes, right? One of the attributes that we share is love.

And what is love to a God that is a single monadic deity, right? The God of Islam, the

God of the Jehovah's Witnesses. This God who is a single person. Who for eternity has loved no one except for himself.

How does he create a necessarily creation that needs community?

The only reason that we are communal beings. And that we seek love and we seek relationships. Is because our

God is an eternal relationship in and of himself. A God that's a single person.

When the God that's a single person creates. He's creating so he can love someone else.

He's never loved someone else for all eternity, right? Only the triune God actually is a community in and of himself.

That's another thing I didn't bring out. There's so many things that this guy said that was so bad. I read from what he said and some comments.

That God's greatest need is love. Or something like this. He desperately wants you to come to him. This is all stupidity.

It's all stupidity. Okay, Fred. What's your name in the big screen again? Cornbread Fred.

Cornbread Fred, okay. Which is the best name I know of. You know what mine is?

Yeah, yours is Matt Slip. I just use mine all the time now. Do you have a channel?

People are asking you, Fred. Huh? People are asking if you have a channel, Fred. Oh, no,

I don't. I preach at a local church. And I write books.

And I have a Facebook page. Did you say corn fed? Cornbread Fred.

Oh, cornbread. Okay, alright. Are you a pastor?

Not yet. What denomination? Well, we're non -denominational.

But we're. I mean, we practice infant baptism. So we're Presbyterian -ish.

But we don't have a Presbyterian, if that makes sense. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I'm glad you're Presbyterian. Now I'm just curious.

Cessationist or continuationist? Or modified continuationist? I agree with John Frame.

I think I'm more of a soft cessationist. Okay, yeah. And you know

John was my professor, right? I know John. I have to read his book for my class.

Oh, there you go. Yeah, that's a good book. What's that? John Frame Apologetics? Yeah. You know, he goes to church like 20 minutes from me.

I'm going to visit one Sunday. So I can go see him. He won't be what you expect.

Yeah, I kind of figured that. He seems like a. Well, I'm listening to a podcast where he did an interview. And he seems like a jolly, nice guy.

And I can just imagine like all his stuff is in his writings. But in person, he's just like this soft kind of.

He is. He's extremely intelligent. And it's hidden behind his humility.

You have to dig it out of him. But he would go in class. He would rock back and forth while he's teaching. And he's brilliant.

You never know how smart he is until you really spend time with him. And you realize this guy really knows his stuff.

And he really does. But you just go see him before. Because he's old. He's getting up there. His wife passed away.

But go see him. And say, Matt Slick says hi. Because he'll remember me. I did that to, who was that?

Dr. Godfrey. I said, Matt Slick said hi. And he was like. He looked at me and he goes, oh,

Matt. I remember him. Chasing the Jehovah's Witnesses down the street. He was chasing them.

And he goes, that guy. And he just was like trying to compose himself. Yeah. Back in seminary, we actually had a professor tell me.

We were talking someplace. He goes, we don't know what to do with you. What? What did

I do wrong? He says, because you come into class late at lunch. Yeah, because I'm talking to Mormon.

He goes, that's exactly it. We can't dock you because you're doing the work of the Lord. But you should be in class.

But what are we going to do? And I said, and he goes, you're causing us problems. It was a good problem, though.

Oh, that's funny. Yeah. Anyway. But yeah, the debate was a dumpster fire for him.

And he did badly. It was really bad. It was.

You know what? One of the things was, it kind of disheartens me. A lot of the times in the online debates, it just gets a little crazy.

Even if the guy is way off or not. But the fact of the matter was the mocking and the laughing.

And I mean, the vitriol that you see. Well, in the chat and just the way when you're talking, he's just always smiling.

And you know what? I remember the last time we had a discussion, they were saying, well, he just smiles.

Or someone told me that they made a comment that this guy smiles when he gets nervous.

But it didn't happen. I know a guy who laughs when he gets injured. Well, OK, maybe it could happen.

I mean, but still, the way he was, he was always laughing at he just it was maybe the arrogance and the pride

I was picking up on. Because he just thinks he's so right. You know, but it could be it could have just been nervous.

I don't know. And the other thing is people quote Bible passages all the time without actually reading the context.

You know, so right now in church, we're preaching through Hebrews right now. And Sunday I have to deal with Hebrews to nine.

So, you know, you have to talk about how Christ tasted death for everyone. And my

Armenian friends bring that to me all the time. Well, Christ tasted death for everyone. Don't you know? And it's like, can you can you reread the context?

Can we finish reading chapter two, please? You know, Hebrews 217 says what he had to be made like his brothers in every way.

They might become a merciful high priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people and the people in context are the children of God.

So a lot of people have this arrogant pride about them, but it's because they'll go and they'll just quote one verse and they will ignore the context.

Well, it's self -evident what this means. And that's all he's doing. You think, oh, well, look, God repented. Obviously, God can repent.

And it's like, can we read the context here? You know, can we can we can we look at the whole of Scripture and and see what what we're told about who

God is and what God's character is? No, you see, they just latch on to these these little phrases and these one verse in these single verses.

And they don't know the whole context of these passages. And then they have this arrogance. And if you if you approach the

Scriptures in a systematic way, trying to look at everything as a whole. Oh, you're a philosopher. Yeah.

Did you like my comment about Homer Simpson theology?

Yeah. You covered that in things the open theist God would say. Yeah. Yeah.

And I actually said during the discussion that I said, yeah, hold it to Homer Simpson theology where God goes, don't.

It's not a bad point. You know, before I left Marlon's room, Matt, I suggested three minutes.

So go ahead. I suggested people go to that link on what you wrote about Karm's position on Calvinism.

I think they'll find it unusually charitable. I mean, they they have such a raw nerve for anything that mentions

Calvinism, whereas you're very charitable in that article. And heck, you got me on your board of directors and I've never been a

Calvinist. Don't claim to be never have claimed to be. And you seem to get along well with me.

So, hey, Charlie, you're not a Calvinist. No, I'm not. And I've known you 44 years.

Yeah. And I told him one day, well, no, I've never been a Calvinist. He goes, oh, really? Oh, OK.

He didn't care. He didn't know. Can I make one comment about that real quick? Yeah.

The not not not not against Charlie. I don't mean this against Charlie, but I notice that every single heresy, every false system, every cult, they're never reformed.

There's no there's no Calvinist cults out there. Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, the open theist, the

Christian scientists, all these false religions. They all assume synergies and they all assume that man is responsible for his own salvation at the end of the day.

And it's and of course, that's that's the nature of cultist nature of heresy is to raise man to godhood and to in some way put yourself as a means of salvation.

Right. So so that's why you can never have a Calvinist cult, because Calvinism is the one that's that's saying, no,

God's holy other. He is he this is monergistic. Right. God alone saves.

God chooses who he's going to save. He's going to glorify him by what means. Right. That's it's ironic to me that all these cults, all these false religions, they all agree on one thing.

And that's that man's responsible for his own salvation at the end of the day. Yeah. I've never gone to the works of Calvin.

I've seen him quoted in other things I've read and I go to to see if it's, you know, in context.

But it's only when other people mention it that I take in what what comments Calvin had.

I never been to his institutes or anything like that. So, you know, maybe

Calvin's great, even if you don't believe in the doctrines of grace. Calvin's great. He's a great theologian.

Calvin. Actually, I think Calvin's biggest contribution to the

Christian faith is his Christology. Right. It's Calvin that says Christ is auto fails.

He is God in and of himself, which is a rejection of Thomism. Right. Because because the

Roman Catholics don't believe that Christ is auto fails. They don't believe that he is all say that's

Calvin. That's right. I got to go cook for the family.

They're getting mad at me now, but it's been worth it. I'll take the wrath. Oh, well,

I think it's something I forgot. I got to get going anyway to spend time with the wife and see how she's doing because she's hurting and stuff like that.

But I'll be seeing you on probably Monday. You go to you go to a not big screen, but there's the other one that's there.

It's crap. I only go on big screen and I'm working so much now.

I don't even go on there anymore. Okay. I want to get a better one of these because I'm on there enough.

Is there a way you can buy prescription lenses for the Oculus? Where at?

There's a for the newer one. The new it was like $1 ,100 Oculus. You can but this

I don't know. And so I don't know about that because the

Oculus scratched up my other lenses. So I got to get

LASIK. Yeah, I'm scared of things going to my eyes. Well, I'm the same way.

I'll tell you. I don't have contacts. I can't do it. Like I can't. I just can't do that. Two years later, totally worth it.

Maybe the Quest 3 will solve the problem because you're supposed to have better optics. So you just use it with glasses or are you far sighted?

I don't use any glasses. Okay. So you're far sighted then or something?

No, I need help everywhere. I'm 67. You don't look a day over 67.

Thank you. These are progressives. When I go in there, everything's a little bit blurry. And you know what?

It's just worth it. I can't not use them. All right. Well, thank you guys for letting me in here.

It's been awesome. See you, Matt. Yeah, it's been good. It was fun. I hope to see you. And keep in contact,

Fred, because you're a good guy to know and stay in contact. All right, brother.