Debate Review w/ Paul Day!

Opening Announcements, Upcoming Conference, and Ministry Updates

Well, hello and welcome to The Apologetic Dog. I'm your host, Jeremiah Nortier. Thank you so much for joining me. We were almost on time, but better late than never. If you're new to the channel, hopefully you see 1 Timothy 6 .20 somewhere embedded in that apologetic logo where it's our heart's desire to guard and defend the gospel of grace.

And please hit that like button. That helps my content be able to be circulated all throughout the YouTube worlds. Appreciate that so much. I have a couple announcements before we dive into our episode this evening.

I'm really excited about this. I will be speaking at a conference coming up in February. I believe it starts the 20th through the 22nd in Tullahoma, Tennessee. This conference is called War. It's the battle between the flesh and the spirit.

And so we have so many amazing speakers lined up at the conference. Keith Foskey will be one of them along with Sam Waldron. And my boy Marlon Wilson will be out there too. And so like I said, all these gentlemen will be speaking at this conference.

And so you don't wanna miss it. And I just wanna let people know, please sign up. Seats are filling up. We have a lot to look forward to. We have a pre-conference evangelism bootcamp is what I think they're calling it, and that's February 19th.

And you boys, get back here. I am the last event of the conference, which will be a debate. And I'd love to show you that graphic. The debate is between me and a good friend, Lucas Curcio. I believe he identifies as Wesleyan Armenian, and he's a Methodist.

And so we will be debating on if a believer can lose their salvation. No, they can't. So I'll be basically defending eternal security. I'm really looking forward to this opportunity. And it's not gonna be a dumpster fire debate.

Me and Lucas Curcio, we have a kindred spirit. I count him as a dear brother in the faith. And so we're gonna be able to charitably, oh my goodness, this actually pertains to this episode this evening a little bit.

But me and Lucas, we will be able to get into the scriptures. We will be able to smile and have fun and really talk about the substance of what this debate is going to be centered around. And so that will be at the end of the conference, the Open Air Theology Conference in Tullahoma, Tennessee, coming up in February.

So like I said, please sign up for that debate. Another announcement is I just started having membership availability on YouTube. And so I'm gonna be pumping out some fresh content to those that have been able to monetarily give and support the Apologetic Dog.

That helps so much. Ever since I've started working in ministry full-time now, this is a platform that I wanna be able to spend more time, and my church family has said, yes, Jeremiah, please pursue apologetics.

How can we help you do that? And so you can join the ministry by becoming a member or becoming a Patreon, going to the Apologetic Dog website for more information about those things. So really excited to be able to tell you about the membership.

Last announcement is next Tuesday, so a week from today, I will be having Tony Costa from Toronto Apologetics on the Apologetic Dog. I'm so excited. I've been trying to get Dr. Costa to come on for a long time.

Dr. Costa, from what I understand, he is a Reformed Baptist. And I've had so many people send in questions saying, Jeremiah, what do we do about the historic doctrine of baptismal regeneration? Has it been the case that all of church history has unanimously believed this doctrine universally, that baptismal regeneration has always been this sacrodotal means of receiving the grace of God?

No. And so Tony Costa's gonna help us navigate those waters, pun intended, and how Baptist evangelicals, how we would account for church history. And so yes, there are many patristics, early church fathers, that have written about baptism.

And it seems to be that it would be the case that they would affirm a kind of baptismal regeneration. But we're gonna be talking about not all of them. And for those of us that hold scripture as the highest authority in our life, ultimately we have to judge church history in light of scripture itself.

So that's gonna be a great episode. That will be a week from today, where Dr. Costa, Tony Costa, and myself, we're gonna be discussing baptismal regeneration in relation to church history. So without further ado, I have a guest on with me this evening.

Paul Day, what's going on, sir?

Hi, excited to be here. Always willing to discuss anything related to the scriptures and how they apply to our life. Scripture is not just a subject for theologians, it's everyone is a theologian. So these matters are important to every one of us, no matter how young or old you may be in the faith.

Yes, such a great point. Have you read R .C. Sproul's book, Everyone's a Theologian?

I haven't gotten to that one yet, but I need to.

It's very good. And it basically just echoes what you just said. Everyone's a theologian. And the question is, are you a good one or not? And so I highly recommend that book. But Paul, this is your second time on The Apologetic Dog.

Last time I got to interview you about your journey out of the church of Christ, how God saved you by his amazing grace. And so I'll definitely plug that in the link below after the video. But please tell us a little bit more about yourself and where people can find some of your content.

So you can find a lot of my content just by searching under YouTube, under Paul Day, or you can also use my tag name, Reformed Udays. And in that channel, I discuss a lot of things that have to do with how reformed theology interacts, particularly with theologies that are coming out of the churches of Christ.

And one of my main goals in my presence on YouTube is trying to seek to establish better conversations, better dialogues with members of the churches of Christ to hopefully provide better apologetics and improve our methods of evangelism so that we can have better results when we interact with our friends and neighbors of the churches of Christ.

The Gospel of Grace Versus Church of Christ Theology

Well, that's so wonderful to hear because one of my primary areas of emphasis here at The Apologetic Dog is to evangelize the church of Christ. And Paul, I get called a meanie all the time, and that's the nice way of putting it.

But I do not think that the church of Christ believe in the one true gospel that can save. I think what the church of Christ teach is problematic at its very core. As we get into this debate that I participated in, they have a different anthropology.

They have a different nature of being where you are born innocent, sinless, and you become a sinner by the things that you do over time. And so we have a fundamentally different understanding of who man is, and the church of Christ have a different understanding of who God is.

I would argue a sub-sovereign God, a God that's just merely a bigger version of man. And then when we start getting into the gospel of grace, I believe they add works, their own personal works, to the finished work of Jesus Christ.

And we'll hopefully get into this a little bit, but I believe that crosses the line into a Galatian one heresy, because you gotta believe in the right Jesus, and you have to receive the right Jesus by faith apart from your own works.

And so talking with you in the past has been a tremendous, you bring great clarity, because I don't carry that experience like you do coming out of this. Church of Christ are just all in my backyard, and I evangelize them in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

Yeah, that's one reason why I've tried to keep at this, because when I made the decision to leave, I wanted to make it for the right reasons, not because I had personal beef with anybody, I wanted it to be because this is what the Bible says, this is what they teach.

I cannot be a part of something that is so fundamentally opposed to something as simple as what we would consider simple as the substitutionary atonement of Christ, or even a visceral denial of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Those things are something I'm very passionate about.

I like it. Well, I've summoned you, especially for this episode, because there's a lot of smack talk going on out there in the YouTube worlds. And so I asked Paul Day here if he would listen to that interview that Caleb Robertson and I had, where he interviewed me.

And we did a debate a few weeks ago, and the reason I put it in air quotes, me and you talked about this, it's because I don't feel like Caleb actually debated. I think he just kind of wanted to rally the troops.

You know, he kind of had the one-string banjo going on and made very emotional, I'm all for emotional points, things that resonate with people, but when that's the only card in your hand and you're not addressing my arguments, then, I mean, people are gonna see kind of right through, like, oh, there's not gonna be any good correspondence.

But before we dive into any of the clips, what were some of your initial thoughts when you watched the debate, if we can call it that, and the interview that maybe you watched afterwards?

So it did seem like to me there was only one side there that was actually willing to debate the issues. One thing I think we'll get to in this discussion is Caleb really pretty much shot out right out of the gate, stating what his true intentions were during the debate.

And I don't believe it was God honoring, and I'll let you actually play what he had to say so people won't say that I'm making up what he had to say. And when it came to the actual interview itself, what seemed like a genuine offer to listen to what you had to say instead was a session to try and make fun of you, to try and accuse you of trying to be smarter than everybody else in the room.

And then when it was actually released in public, you see something that they didn't do, like for their interviews with the different brands of detergents of Christ they'd been putting out publicly, they decided they didn't cut it up so you couldn't say that they had cut it up, but they put all kinds of commentary, verbiage all over it.

So it was not an honest effort to let you speak. It was another way that they could grab soundbites and try to go after your character so people wouldn't listen to you.

The interview was interesting because, as we're gonna play here in a moment, Caleb, before he aired the interview, he basically was telling people, no, Jeremiah wanted to basically act like he's the smartest man in the room, and he just told his audience, I think you're gonna be very bored listening to Jeremiah.

Well, I listened to that. I was like, dude, he's poisoning the well hard before he even gives me a chance, Paul. Even before, I didn't even have a chance yet to say anything. But people can find that interview that's out there.

Caleb, I asked him, I was like, hey, can I share the interview on my page? And he said, no, I want this to be a Bible, what does the Bible say, exclusive. And so I was like, okay. I still might do a reacts video to that in a few weeks to come.

But yeah, I may put a link in the show notes afterwards so people can go listen to the interview. And I will say, the interview was mainly asking me about the distinctions of being Reformed Baptist, how is that different than Southern Baptist and Presbyterians.

But you know what? That's what it was subtly trying to do, of saying, aren't y 'all basically just like the Westboro Baptist people that are hyper-Calvinist? And so the debate into the interview, I had a lot of groundwork to try to distinguish myself from those categories.

Because Caleb doesn't like me saying that he doesn't understand our position. And then they'll even say, oh yeah, yeah, we know. You don't think we understand you. Calvinists always say that when we got them pinned against the wall.

And here's the thing. I really wish they would represent us properly because that's what we're trying to do as we critique their viewpoint. But when you straw men, it's up to us to let people know that's not what we believe.

You didn't even try to say that that was an entailment of our position. So do you remember us getting into any of that as far as straw men are concerned?

Yeah, I did. I would add, definitely want to encourage people to listen to that interview that y 'all did. There's one point in that interview that you can really tell what's really going on. Where you tried, you explained perfectly the difference between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians on the mode of baptism and the reasons for baptism, infant baptism, believers baptism.

You explained the different perspective. And he goes, what? You couldn't just say that by just saying the Presbyterian sprinkle and the Baptist dunk people. To me, he says he understands that stuff. But when you make such cocky and arrogant comments like that so belittling and condescending, it's a major turnoff.

But if you do want to hear a good explanation of the difference between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians, that's not done in a way to gaslight or misrepresent. You should definitely listen to what Jeremiah said.

Because if you listen to Caleb, you would think he didn't know anything. But you could get a very good primer on those issues by listening to that interview if you could drown the other guy out.

Yeah, because like you said, if people go listen to the interview, there's a lot of distractions going on. Meaning, not only did he talk about how it was boring, which cracks me up. I'm like, let the people be the judge of that.

But as I'm speaking, he has like a movie. You see the purple backdrop here to, I guess it's my right, your left. There's constantly changing of slides as I'm talking on the interview. So it's distracting, but that's why I wanted to maybe do a Reacts video to it.

Before we dive in, I want to bring up this comment that Carl Henry made out there, but I also want to tell everybody else, if you have any questions throughout our live stream, send that in and you may have to preference it with a question, you may have to post it a few times.

Or if you want to send in a Super Chat question, that gives me a special notification because I want to bring y 'all along as we go. Now Carl, Carl and I are friends. Now Paul, do you know Carl out there?

Yeah, I've seen him in your videos.

Yeah, so Carl says that I am somebody that constantly poisons the well against the Church of Christ. And so Carl, what I want to say is, that's not my aim. Now I want to warn people, but this is what I want to do differently than Caleb.

And Carl, I think you'll respect my heart in this, whether I'm perfect at it or not is a totally different story. But I don't want to poison the well by like saying that Church of Christ are Pelagian.

I believe at the core Pelagius and Church of Christ teach almost identically the same thing. Now there may be are some differing things, but what I'm getting at Carl is, as I warn people according to my conviction about the Church of Christ, I don't want to poison the well.

I don't want to misrepresent and stack the deck before people actually go explore for themselves. And so my attempt is to steel man the Church of Christ position. And I don't think that's what Caleb can do.

And so Carl, my heart is not to poison the well in a malicious way, but I do want to warn people according to the conviction that I have. So hopefully we can be on the same page with that. Oh, the Tatted Theologian is out there.

I just want to give a shout out to the Tatted Theologian and Sparky Zimod out there and Miss Leanne Ferguson and her book she wrote, Christ Rescued Me from the Church of Christ. That being said, Paul, I want to play maybe the opening minute or so from the interview because you were able to check out both of these and I was like, man, I'd love to hear your thoughts on both of these.

And so in this first minute or so, I want us to kind of talk about was the debate fair? And maybe we can get at some of Caleb's true motivation for doing this debate. Sound good?

Yes, sir.

Caleb Robertson’s Framing of the Debate

When the debate was done, Jeremiah and I sat down and he knew it was coming. We talked about it beforehand, doing a post-debate interview. And I only really had maybe four, like four questions that I knew we wanted to talk about.

It's about 45 minutes long. There'll be some excursions that we take along the way, but there's just really only a couple of questions I wanted to ask him. And I have to tell you, I do think that Jeremiah contradicted himself a number of times inside of the debate.

The interview is worse.

I want to say, I don't mind people like Caleb saying, Jeremiah contradicted himself because on one hand, 1 Corinthians chapter two talks about the natural man. It's not going to understand the things of God.

So I think Caleb's being honest with what I explained to him. It is contradiction. So it's not those things that bother me.

The interview will be filled with contradictions of his Calvinistic viewpoints. And there'll be a lot of what you hear tonight through the interview that you will sit there and you'll say, I don't have a clue what this guy is talking about.

And I would say, I get it. It's sectarian mumbo jumbo. Like there's only going to be a select group of people who have a clue what he's talking about. And I say that to him in the interview. I'm like, tell it, say it in such a way where people who don't have all this stuff going on can understand what you're saying.

I think it's ridiculous to talk that way. This isn't a smart guy competition. I understood the stuff he was talking about, but I'm just saying, I'm not in this for, you know, to make this about a scholarly pursuit or anything like that.

I want it to be plain. We want to get to the heart of the matter. We want to understand what the conclusions are. And I think a lot of these guys just want to come out and they just want to sound intellectual.

I, you know, that's just what I think about it. And I'm not basically having a moment of, you know, beating him up, but I'm saying, I think that a lot of y 'all will get into the interview and say, this is boring.

And I'm saying it's because he just starts pontificating about their systematic theologies and on and on and on. It's not great, but it.

Well, you know, I was answering his questions. So anyway, do you want me to keep playing it or do you want me to cut off there?

Let's see, there was.

I keep playing it. We might listen to another minute or so if we need to.

I think if, I think my biggest thing was, but that first, the opening period there of the actual interview, it's that beginning part of it. I think that's the most eyeopening.

Would that classify as poisoning the well? Telling everybody, uh-oh, get ready for this boring interview. Jeremiah's just pontificating a lot.

Well, if Jeremiah was intending to be fair and hospitable, he should have prefaced it saying, we wanted to continue this discussion a little bit and Jeremiah was gracious to continue and answer a few extra questions I had.

It's here for you to listen to and you can make up your own mind about it. So that would have been the nice thing to do, but the Robinsons aren't exactly known.

For that sort of thing.

Yeah. Paul, it was, I will say this. When I got to Virginia and I met Caleb and his dad, Johnny, beforehand, they were super kind to me before and after. And during the interview, I thought Caleb was a totally different person because the debate felt like a tech.

And we'll get into more of that here in a little bit. But after about halfway through the debate, I started feeling a lot better. I could, took some deep breaths, said a few prayers and realized, hey, God has a purpose in all this, a redeeming, sanctifying purpose.

So I'm gonna trust him in that. And I finally started to enjoy the rest of the evening. And so I'm not trying to be uncharitable towards Caleb and Johnny. During this interview, I thought it was very nice.

So what people are seeing right now is Caleb giving his opinions about the debate afterwards before he actually plays the clip. And so I thought it was kind of bizarre that he just told everybody, hey, Jeremiah contradicted himself, which I'm not, that's totally fine for him to think that.

But then to kind of just tell people, hey, it's just gonna be so boring. So basically get your popcorn and try to make it all the way through. I just was like, oh, it hurts my feelings. I'm okay though.

So yeah, did you have any other thoughts? I know we were already kind of setting this up, but he kept mentioning how he believes salvation should be so simple and it's the Calvinists, it's the reform that really complicate things.

Salvation, Simplicity, and the Charge of Intellectualism

Yeah, that was a, when that came up, really the first thing that came to my mind wasn't a book of theology. I didn't think about R .C. Sproul. I didn't think about John Calvin. I didn't think about Augustine.

The first thing that came to my mind was Luke's book of Acts and the epistle of second Peter, where somebody who's showing their ignorance really of the content of scripture make statements like, well, when you're speaking about salvation, it shouldn't be very complicated.

We should just be able to spit it out and be done with it. Actually, the Bible says a different story about that. There's two sides to that.

Before we play this next clip, I wanna thank Carl. Like I said, me and Carl are friends. You gotta think in a different life, man. If he could have been on the right side of the gospel, we would have been even better friends.

He did ask this question. Want you to share your thoughts on this because the whole debate centered around, well, Jeremiah thinks that some babies go to hell. That sounds so awful, regardless of what the scripture actually teaches.

On that emotional point, Caleb wanted everyone to forget everything else that I said. And so he asked a good question. And if we had a good debate, I could have maybe answered some of this. And this comes out a little bit in the interview.

And I saw Caleb's eyes get big, like, oh, wait, you don't think babies go to hell that die in infancy that are non-elect? I'm like, no. And I wanna bring some clarity on this. So I'll start with Carl's question here.

He goes, Jeremiah, did Caleb get you to admit that all babies go to heaven? Disagree with essentially the 1689 and James White's position. This is so huge. Well, this may be huge to some people, but there is an ongoing discussion in the Reformed world, especially throughout church history.

Now, the 1689 Westminster, they affirmed the elect infants. And what I've always said, what I've always said is God is sovereign in salvation. Romans nine talks about God gives mercy to those whom he sees fit to show mercy.

And I just say, it's God's prerogative. If it's to save all babies or not, that is up to him. And so that's the Reformed position is God is sovereign, whether it's infant salvation or adult salvation.

My position is I don't think the script, you can find one single verse that says all babies that die in infancy immediately go to heaven. We have to look at inductive principles. And we do look at verses that say, for of such are the kingdom of heaven, which we're gonna get into.

And what's the immediate context of being taught there and what are we to learn? Well, we do see principles all throughout scripture about God and his goodness and his love and his grace. And so what I've told people is inductively, I trust the just judge of all the earth to do right.

And God is free to save all infants if that's what he wants. But that is just my opinion, looking at all of scripture. I have so many Reformed friends that say, well, since scripture is not clear, we don't know and we know the elect ones do.

And I'm high-fiving them saying, that's exactly right. And so for a debate with the church of Christ, I'm not gonna give them an inch and let them try to poison the well, but that's exactly what Caleb did, is I just let him know on a personal level, I just believe after reading the scriptures, studying the character of God and saying, it looks like maybe, possibly, all infants that die in infancy go to heaven, not because of their goodness, but because of God's goodness and his grace and his mercy.

So did you wanna speak to that any?

Yeah, that reminds me of something that I heard R .C. Sproul Jr. say one time. He said that if infants go to heaven, they will not go to heaven apart from faith in Jesus Christ and being regenerated. So that has to be, and that's one thing we'll get into later, when the clear texts of scripture speak, there's a clear emphasis on people having faith and a moral character that aligns with that confession of faith.

So it is a complicated question. I land more on your side of things, because a lot of the verses that people put forward concerning whether infants are safe, as those in the churches of Christ would say, they are not as emphatic or actually proving or addressing the point that they're being used to prove.

So I do not believe that this is a subject that God has given us definitive revelation on. But what I tell people is this, and this comes from someone who my immediate family, we have there's three siblings.

Before me, there were two siblings who died before they were born. So this issue affected our family from the beginning. What I try and say is this, children are a gift from the Lord. They are ultimately not ours, they are His.

We are entrusted with them for whatever time that we have. And should God decide to take them away, that is His prerogative. And we don't have a right to have a beef with God for taking back what He has given to us.

So just like he had mentioned before, we ought to have the kind of faith that Abraham had, that he could, when faced with what seemed like something was horrendous, no matter what the outcome was, he knew that surely that the Lord would do right.

He was the righteous judge. He would always do what's right. So our focus should be the scriptural focus, the method of spreading the gospel, trying to win lost souls for Christ. And when it comes to speculations, things that you would think the churches of Christ would resonate with us on, we know we need to speak where the Bible speaks after all, and be silent where the Bible is silent.

So I'm just doing what they tell me to do. On this issue, I do not believe God has chosen to give us all the answers that we want. The secret things belong to the Lord, but what He has revealed to us, He's revealed those things to us and our children forever.

And that should be enough for us.

That's so good. And I think someone sent me a clip of Caleb and Johnny saying, Jeremiah changed his position after debate. And I kind of chuckled. I was like, at this point, I can't be charitable and think that they're just doing things out of ignorance.

I really think they're trying to lie and manipulate because I didn't change my position. In fact, Caleb never heard me throughout the entire debate. That's why in the interview, his eyes got real big when I told him, I don't think any babies that die in infancy go to hell.

He was just like, you don't? But James White, James White is a good representation of showing people that these are hard issues to work out because scripture does not tell us explicitly. But the big takeaway is any infant that goes to heaven, it's not based on their own goodness.

And so Leanne posted, cause I put this video in the debate, is Caleb says that babies do not need Jesus. And I thought that is so problematic because Jesus is very clear in the gospel account. He says, no one comes to the Father except through me.

And he says, no one. He says, I'm the way, the truth, and life, no one. And so even in Church of Christ theology, you would think that they would have to better reconcile the words of Jesus and all the exclusive statements of how Jesus is the only door, he's the good shepherd, he is the only way to salvation.

And so the Church of Christ have another way of salvation for infants. And so I don't think that's what you should be saying because anybody that's equipped with what the scripture, what the Bible says, Paul, did you hear me say that a lot in the debate?

I tried to wear that out a little bit for their audience. But if anybody knows what the Bible says, well, of course, infants need Jesus. In that conclusion, it's problematic when they go to proof text of saying like, for of such is the kingdom of God these little ones.

Well, what they're really now implying is, oh, you gotta be like these little ones that don't need Jesus. And then you're like, well, then you can't make any right application for yourself. So it's a hot mess.

So do you have any more thoughts with that?

Well, the only thing I would add is, just in reading up on the issue and the history of the confession and why it was written the way it was, I would think that people, it should be something that people within the Church of Christ would take a lesson from, because clearly when you read the authors of this confession, not all of them had the same opinion on the subject.

Some of them affirmed that all infants were elect. Some of them would affirm that some were not. So the confession was written in such a way that all sides could walk away from the table agreeing on something and uniting on the things that they agreed with instead of splitting on the things that divided them.

So they were able to properly differentiate between primary and secondary issues, and they were willing to state things in such a way that didn't drive each other away. So I think it's actually a good object lesson for how we should handle theological differences, recognizing the differences between primary and secondary differences, and how to construct things in a way to say we agree on this much, and that's a good thing.

Salvation Is Simple, Yet Some Things Are Hard to Understand

What's up, everybody that's joining in the side chat, Justin Stazny, aka Richardson out there. So Carl, I just wanna make sure, because you've been sending in those super chats, so I feel like I gotta make sure that we're understanding each other a little bit.

Carl says, never ever have I heard a member of the body say we don't need Jesus. Carl, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. We're talking about how Caleb said infants and babies don't need Jesus, and we're saying that's a problem based on the words of Christ himself, because he says, no one comes to the Father except through me, and our position is, well, that would include the least of these, infants.

So I just wanted to help bring some clarity on that as well. Let's continue with the next portion where, Paul, salvation is simple, man, and you just complicate things.

Instead of saying, and I'm saying, pay attention to the contradictions, and do not get lost in all the boring jargon of the Calvinist position. Systematic theology, attempted pseudo-intellectualism. It's 1 Timothy 1 .7, these guys desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor wherever they affirm, just riddled with contradictions.

James 3 .1, be not many masters. I mean, he's propping himself up as being the teacher coming in to educate, and I just try to keep it simple to the conclusions. 1 Timothy 3 .6, not a novice left being lifted up with pride.

You fall into the condemnation of the devil. Everybody, if you can stick with it, is gonna see the inconsistency. 2 Timothy 3 .7, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. I think 2 Corinthians 11 .3, it should be simple.

So your mind should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. Their stuff is so complicated, and you know, when I was debating with him, one of the things that he said more than like seven times, Caleb, you don't understand.

Caleb, you don't get.

Time.

Turn it off.

So yeah, so let's just get all the cards out on the table. Newsflash, the churches of Christ do have a systematic theology. They just don't write it down, and when you come in there and try and teach something against what they're teaching, you find out how quickly they do have a systematic theology.

So really, their belief is, we have a systematic theology. Anybody else who goes against what we say is obviously wrong so this idea of systematic theology is wrong, and we just won't call our systematic theology.

It's just the Bible. So what really rubbed me the wrong way was this idea, like when you're talking about things of salvation, all this complicated verbiage stuff, this highfalutin theological myths, I mean, you don't find anything like that in the Bible.

It's all simple, it's cut and dry, nobody had a hard time understanding things, and I don't know how familiar everybody is with Caleb Robertson, but he has made a statement before in one of his broadcasts where he stated that it was impossible to convert somebody in one day.

He literally said it is impossible.

To convert somebody in one day. But this, it's simple, it's simple, just another one of those double standards. But what does Scripture actually have to say on the issue? Well, Scripture addresses that as a yes and a no answer.

You bet you, the gospel is a simple issue. It's so simple, like when you read the conversion account of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, where after all that what happened, the jailer comes out and he says, sir, what must I do to be saved?