Roman Catholicism and Issues of Forgiveness | Apologetics Live 0014

This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew

Rappaport, part of the Christian Podcast Community.

All right.

We are live, Apologetics Live, every Thursday night, 8 o 'clock Eastern time, here to answer your

apologetic questions, challenges, whatever it may be that you have that you want

someone to give an answer to.

Now, I can answer any question that you have because I don't know is a perfectly good

answer.

Matt gives better answers than that, and so that's why we hand him the more difficult questions like, how much

water have you had today, Matt?

Pretty much, I've had several glasses of water.

Now I'm doing my juice, carrot, apple, cucumber, and here's another glass of

water right here.

I liked it better when you weren't juicing.

I'm just saying.

I feel better.

I mean, I'll tell you, I feel better.

Disgusting.

Now we need to get a new juicer.

We need to get one that masticates so I can start using green leafy vegetables instead of fruits and big vegetables, don't

want leafy stuff.

The one like I have, the Blendtec, and the nice thing about the Blendtec is you can throw everything in there.

They actually, you should go check this out, Matt.

You'd love it, but if you go Blendtec's video, their YouTube page, they basically

just throw into it, iPhones, Samsung Galaxies, iPads,

anything.

They just toss it in there and they turn the thing on and within a few minutes, it's just nothing but dust.

Well, if we could see if one would work for what we do, I think I'd put all the veggies, all the everything in there, and it just turns it into a

liquid, then I would drink it, but at any rate.

Yeah.

Well, you're going to come back over to my place and we'll show you.

Yeah.

I want you to come out to Arizona and bring it.

Oh yeah.

And leave it behind, right?

Mm -hmm.

No, I'll get one if it's good.

So next week, folks, next week, I will not be here.

I'll be in Atlanta, Georgia at the G3 Conference.

If you are going to be attending G3, check out the Striving for Eternity booth.

We're going to be giving away lots and lots of books.

I mean, lots and lots of books, about 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 books we're bringing down to give away.

That's how we make money.

We give them away.

And John Wilkinson won't get any of them because he still has my Bible in my theory.

I was just going to ask, are you going to be giving out a particular red Bible that I may have?

No.

You're looking for it.

I know.

So Matt, you've been working on some articles on Karm that are

basic articles that we would think most Christians would know, but probably don't.

You were doing some searching recently where you found that the most, some commonly Googled

questions within Christianity, like what is the gospel and what is love?

And so you've been working on some articles on that recently.

What can you share with us about that?

I've been working on them for a while.

That's great detail.

I love it.

Everyone was educated from that, right?

That's right.

Actually, I'm doing some SEO experiments to see positioning and things like that.

And so what I did was I looked,

I did some analysis of some stuff and I'll skip things, but I'll do some analysis and

try to, I'm applying something and basically

things are getting worse.

Seriously.

You got some great analysis.

Oh, seriously.

Yeah.

I did word analysis and converted things and did stuff and we're just losing traffic.

Well from your study.

So let's just say, what is the gospel?

Because we had someone last week that didn't know what it was.

So what is the gospel?

Especially with, I know we got some Catholics who are in, you know, watching on YouTube and stuff.

I can tell because they're commenting.

They don't know the gospel.

They probably have a different gospel.

What is the Bible's view of the gospel?

The gospel is Eulangelia, 1 Corinthians 15, one through four, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ

for our sins.

That's what it's defined as.

What Catholics like to do is say that it's a series of works and things.

The gospel is everything that Jesus said.

You got to do everything that he said in order to be saved and things like that.

They don't have the true gospel because they are not true Christians.

And that's just a flat out fact.

They're not.

And as a matter of fact, I was teaching on this.

Let's see.

Let me get into your, I'm going to look up something, a read, something from

Trent, the heresy fest, Trent.

This is what Canon, Trent, Trent, 1500s, yeah,

the council of Trent, November, it's going to be in November of 1544.

It was trying to counteract the reformers.

And then in 1546, they added extra books to the Bible.

And then the Catholics today say, no, you guys took them out.

No, no, no, no, no, we didn't.

And in Galatians 189, the word anathema is used in the Greek, means to curse.

And so the context is if you preach a different gospel, you're cursed, you're anathema.

So what is, what's going on there is that the, what Paul the Apostle is saying, if you preach a false gospel, you're damned,

you're cursed.

That's what he's saying.

This is what's, I'm going to read Canon 9 for the council of Trent on justification.

And Canon 24, both of these are antichrist doctrines that the

Roman Catholic church teaches as official.

Canon 9, if anyone sayeth that by faith alone, the impious is justified, in which wise

as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order

to the obtaining the grace of justification in that it is not in any way

necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.

So what it's saying here is if the faith are justified, they believe that by faith alone, you're justified

and that nothing else other than your faith in God, faith in the Lord alone is what is required in order to

cooperate, to the obtaining of the grace of justification.

You understand something in Roman Catholicism, grace is like a substance that's infused into you upon their sacraments.

So the more grace you have, the more righteous you are.

So Canon 9, what it does is it curses justification by faith alone in Christ alone.

And then Canon 24, if anyone sayeth that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God

through good works.

But that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a

cause of the increase thereof, let it be anathema, cursed.

So if anyone says that the justice received is not preserved, kept, and

increased by your good works.

So the justification that you get before God, that you obtain before God, it has to be, if you say it's not

preserved, kept, that is, or increased by what we do in good works, let it be cursed.

So the Roman Catholic Church curses the saving gospel of Jesus Christ

as revealed through the New Testament.

And it is a demonic organization.

It's just, it's demonic.

It anathematizes the true gospel.

How do we know it's a true gospel?

Because the Bible says, we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

What Catholics will typically do is say, well, that works of the law is a mosaic law.

Some say it's just the Ten Commandments.

It doesn't say that, but some will say it's just the Ten Commandments.

But it's a problem because in paragraph 2068, no, 2020, oh, I've got to remember

this, 2036, I think it is, the precepts of the natural law are a manifestation

manifested in the Ten Commandments.

In 2036, it says in the Catholic catechism, you have to keep them in order to be saved.

So they're teaching that the Ten Commandments are necessary to be saved.

If however, that the, in regards to Romans 3, 28, that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

If they say it's just the whole mosaic law that it's talking about, and that you have to keep New Testament law,

then I ask them, what New Testament law do you have to keep and love your neighbor and help people and be, you know, work at

charity?

And then what I do, I don't have it memorized.

I go back to the Old Testament and I quote the Old Testament laws where it says those exact same things.

And so what we have in Roman Catholicism is a completely apostate false church that

promotes idolatry and works righteousness and is in league with the devil himself.

And I believe that in the Vatican, there are,

there are demonic forces, this is my opinion, I can't prove it, demonic forces that

are working to promote their satanic doctrines regarding justification and that all who believe in

official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation are doomed to eternal hell.

You brought up the issue of Trent because so many people with what you said toward the end of that will get so upset with

you.

How could you say that they're Christian too?

How could you say that they're going to hell?

And yet you read, they condemn us to hell.

So why should they have a problem if we're saying the same thing with them?

I mean, I don't mind if they tell me that I'm condemned to hell.

According to their doctrine, I would be.

I'd rather than be honest with that instead of trying to placate it.

But I have no problem saying the same with them.

Their doctrine is not biblical.

Yeah, their doctrine is not biblical and it's a false doctrine.

And unfortunately, what it's going to do is lead people to eternal damnation.

And this is why no Protestant should ever unite with the Catholic Church in anything

that's related to this doctrine and the doctrines of Mary in their incredible idolatry that they promote

in there.

Now, let me just kind of expand a little bit on something here that's worth mentioning at this point.

They have, I could explain this, what a Roman Catholic will do is they'll say

that we're not saved by the works and we're not saved by grace or by faith and works.

A lot of Catholics will tell me this, not faith and works, but a faith that's manifested in works.

That's the faith that has to be real.

And we would agree with them to that point because we would say that true faith has manifestation as James 2,

14 through 26 talks about.

And I talked about that in the radio today and someone had a problem with it.

Anyway, so what they have, which is really interesting, in Catholic

theology, there is what is called condign merit and congruent merit, but

they also have what's called strict merit.

Let me get rid of strict first.

We can talk about the other things.

Strict merit is reward due to, you know, for direct relationship of something.

If you work $10 an hour, you work 10 hours, you are owed a hundred dollars.

They call it strict merit.

What's really interesting is why they put the word merit in there, which is really interesting, but nevertheless, condign merit, reward for an

action because of God's promise to reward good works.

So condign deals with God's promise.

So if he's going to promise you that he'll do something, if you perform something, he

promises to bless you.

But this is only for those who are in God's grace and they're accomplishing God's will.

So that's condign merit is.

So an example would be honoring your parents.

So you have the reward of a blessing from God since God said you'd be blessed.

So condign is like the 10 commandments honoring your mother and your father.

And if you do that, you're blessed.

God doesn't owe it to you, but he's committed himself to do it.

That's condign merit.

Congruent merit, reward for an action based on the kindness and desire of the one giving the

merit.

It is a reward that is not owed.

It is based on the kindness of the one who gives a reward.

So you clean your parents' house, though it was not required, and they reward you with ice cream.

So it's just a, you know, a gratuitous kind of a, hey, we just love what you did.

Here's some, here's a blessing.

And there's no obligation in congruent merit, but there is in condign merit.

You're obligated because you committed yourself to do it.

So if you honor your mother and your father, that's condign merit.

Then God is obligated to bless you for that.

But in congruent merit, God's not obligated to do anything for you.

Just a non -unconditional kind of a blessing.

And so this is what they're going to do.

So when they're talking about salvation, what they're going to be talking about is the issue of,

you don't earn your salvation through your works.

But now, I'm going to study this some more, but your works are both,

from what I understand, are both condign and congruent in their meritorious effect.

And so if you were to honor your mother and your father, your Benetton commandments, and there's a blessing guaranteed upon you

because God has committed Himself to it, hence condign merit.

But if you were to help an old lady cross the street, so to speak, and there's nothing in the Bible that says to do that exact

thing, whatever, whatever it might be that you've done, God rewards you for that, what you've done, and they call

it congruent merit.

Now what I need to do is sit with an expert in Catholic theology and sit down

and go over these differences and issues of condign merit, because the term merit

is problematic.

Because with merit, it's something earned, it's something you've gotten.

But what they're going to say is, no, you've not earned it, not in a strict sense where it's obligated to be given to you,

but in a gracious sense, condign and congruent.

So condign God commits Himself, where congruent He doesn't, to bless you.

And so what they're going to do is say that these works are

both condign and congruent, and in this effort that you do, then

these works, though they don't have any merit in themselves because God is watching you do them, so to speak, then

He rewards you, and so you are then to be blessed.

Now the problem here, of course, is that this is tied to salvation.

So with a condign merit, or congruent merit is the case, then God is effecting grace

upon you based upon your performance.

Even though they might say, well, it's not owed, but it's promised, or not promised, or owed, whatever, and so you

can be blessed that way.

And so this is the kind of thing that they say.

And so the problem here, of course, is Titus 3 .5 says you're not saved on the basis of any works that you've done in your

justification, in your relationship with God, in your salvation, in your righteousness, and so that refutes

condign and congruent merit.

So what the Roman Catholic Church is trying to do is say that they have an excuse

for doing good works that leads to salvation, but not strictly speaking, but in a

condign and congruent manner, it leads to salvation, in that the grace that God gives to

you in condign merit is owed to you because God promised that He'll do it to you.

It's not owed in that sense that it's direct, but He promises to reward you, where congruent merit,

He hasn't promised to reward you, but He gives it to you.

And so these merits given to you, I believe, are in relationship to sanctifying

grace or justifying grace, and that that is what gets you saved.

And they'll say, but it's not by any strict merit, because what they'll do is they'll say, we say that they're doing it by strict merit, and they go,

no, it's condign and congruent,.

If that makes sense.

Yeah, and I would hope that there's someone by the name of Catholic Traditionalist

on YouTube who's commenting, so you're welcome to come in here and explain how Matt's got that

wrong.

More than welcome to.

Yeah, because they all say I have it wrong, okay, and I'm trying to represent them accurately.

I mean, in all seriousness, it's... hold on.

Okay, so what he said, actually, I'll read what he said, because that may help, at least we could interact with

that.

He says, Matt...

Matt, Trent doesn't say by what we do.

Instead, Trent is speaking of the works God does through us, Trent is simply making the case that we must say yes, we must say yes

to accepting the Lord working through us.

We must say yes.

Hey, God, you can't do it unless I say yes.

Look at how great I am.

It reminds me of that song by Hillsong, I think it's Hillsong, God, we give you permission

to come into our lives.

What?

It's a heresy.

Yeah, it's a bad song.

Oh, you've got to be kidding me.

I have not heard that.

Yeah, it's a beautiful song, and then we give you permission, like, oh, man.

But at any rate, Matt, but it's not our works whereby we are meritorious in Catholicism.

That's what I said.

Instead, it's by saying yes to accepting God's working through us whereby we merit our good.

You need to get in here if you want to talk to me, unless you can't and you want to just put those statements in.

I'll comment on them.

That's fine.

But the thing is.

It's just not as good as having a dialogue.

Yeah.

But what he's saying, you know, to say yes to God's work means then that by our

declaration of yes to what God wants to do to us, that's how

we get saved.

It's still on your effort, on your sincerity, on your declaration.

It's humanistic philosophy woven into Roman Catholicism.

Now, the fact is, now, I guess Catholic traditionalist is a son of a cantus, so the Catholic catechism, you know,

won't do any good to him.

But the fact is that Trent has actually anathematized the gospel

itself.

And anyone who believes and accepts Trent in the doctrine of salvation is anathema.

So there you go.

Yeah.

And the thing is, is that, you know, I mean, I hope he does come in so we can dialogue with him.

Let's go.

Let's go.

Cat actually has a question.

She's usually here and watching.

Speaking of cats, we see we see John having a cat walk all over him.

But the other cat is here and has a question for you.

So, Cat, you can unmute yourself.

Can I really?

No, actually, read the mind.

No, actually, I was going to ask a little bit about forgiveness.

And I know what Scripture says as far as like Colossians 3, 13, Matthew 6, 14, 15,

Luke 17, 3, 4, all that.

And I feel like I've got a good grasp on the forgiveness and being able to forgive others.

But, you know, it's sort of like that follow up afterwards.

Okay, I have forgiven you for how you've wronged me or whatnot.

But are there...

Do we also...

How would I phrase this?

Using caution afterwards, depending on what somebody has done and their actions and their behaviors.

So, I mean, specifically, I'm thinking about a church I had attended that I won't, you know, I won't say their name.

It's the church, not God.

That was at fault.

And they had an elder that was actually listed on a sex registry.

And I didn't...

Because I have children, that's why I had looked sometimes.

I just looked to see who's around me and saw him on there.

And I brought it to the church.

And they, you know, dismissed it like it was no big deal.

But this was somebody who also worked with the children as well.

Well, let me interrupt and ask questions.

Because some of these... sex offender

accusations are false.

And sometimes they're for a stupid little something and they get registered.

And it was innocent.

Sometimes it's bad.

So, you know, you're going to find out more.

But yeah.

Well, the church wasn't willing to...

And I respect people's right to privacy, especially for some things, you know, especially with a lot of things.

And I have a lot of leeway in my life for people.

But this was something where this person was definitely in their 30s.

And it was for something that was a young girl.

And that...

It was something that was a young girl.

That was associated.

I'm sorry.

Some sort of contact.

I didn't know what it was because the church was never forthcoming on what.

But it was some sort of inappropriate behavior with a young girl.

At this point, you know, what do you do if...

You know, I'm not trying to justify.

We have to understand circumstances.

Let's say there was an 18 -year -old boy with raging hormones.

He has a 17 -year -old girlfriend.

Blah, blah, blah.

And now he's registered as a sex offender.

And at 23, he becomes a hardcore Christian.

Now he's registered.

But now if the church knows about all of this and says, look, you know, it was just stupid.

He's registered.

But it's okay.

Then we're going to trust the church at that point.

Right.

So that's okay then to have people that are in that position as church leadership, things like that.

You know, as long as the church has...

As long as the people in the church feel that he has definitely, you know, moved on from this,

then it should be okay.

We trust in that.

Okay.

And then another...

If the elders know and they said, look, we've studied this.

We know all the circumstances.

It's okay.

Then you can trust the elders at that point.

Because if I, you know, say I was at a pastor and a guy came to me and said, this is what happened and blah, blah, blah.

And I don't want it out, but I need to tell you everything.

Right.

And I'd say, okay.

But then, you know, me, I would say, you know, it'd be a difficult one because he's a...

Let's say he was 95 % innocent, if you know what I mean.

Yeah.

Not completely innocent, but he screwed up and whatever.

Then I would have to tell him, you know, I'd say, look, you gotta understand something.

If I can't say anything to anybody about this and they find out, we got a problem.

So you just can't work with children.

Period.

Right.

Because we can't have that kind of a problem be hanging over our heads

and not be able to defend ourselves.

It's opening ourselves up to problems.

Right.

Exactly.

Actually, Matt, there's a legal thing there that you also have to be...

I mean, if, especially if you're in a position of a pastor or someone like that who knows of

something like that, if it is dealing with younger children, even teenagers

and you allow...

Oh no, it was younger.

Oh, even younger.

Okay.

So, you know, but even with teenagers though, it's still the same thing is that you can't...

First off, as pastors, pastors are mandatory reporters for folks.

Yes, they are.

Yeah.

Some may not know what that means, but there's certain people, pastors, police, that

they are obligated to report things if they rape, things like

that.

So there's some areas where you must report it.

There's also, you have to keep in mind that, you know, I had in my church, someone who

their own children were removed from their house because of abuse.

Well, they wanted to serve with the children's ministry.

There was no way because they had, they already had a record of physically

abusing children, not sexually, but physically.

And it's the safety of the other children.

You want to think the best, but that's not the only area they can serve in.

Now, if they're saying that's the only area they want to serve in, that actually could be an issue because...

Yeah, that'd be a problem.

That'd be a red flag.

Do you only want to work with the children?

Oh, okay.

Really?

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

I mean, the reality is, unfortunately, and, you know, we have a guy at Striving Fraternity who is

one of Georgia's leading experts on sexual abuse.

He does counseling of basically like all the Georgia's sexual offenders.

Wow.

And a lot of them, they, you know, they go to church and that's where they find victims

because people are trusting, people are open.

They want to think the best of people.

And we just, we have to be aware that people can fake it.

I mean, I had a guy in our church that wanted to date a young girl.

He knew she was a believer.

Turns out he wasn't a believer, but he actually faked it for three years.

I mean, he did a good job faking it.

And it was announced she was getting married and he disappeared.

He went right back to the bar where he used to bartend.

I went out after hours after the bar was over.

I sat by his car.

He walks to the car, sees me, which is never a good thing at three in the morning.

But, you know, and I talked to him.

I said, what are you doing?

And he's like, I was actually just faking it that all that whole time.

I just wanted to date her.

I just was hoping to get married.

And so people can fake it and play.

I mean, do it.

I mean, he never missed a Bible study.

He was at every church event.

You thought that he really changed.

And he admitted to me he was putting on an act.

And so people can do that just to earn that trust.

So if you have someone that's saying they want to serve in a ministry with children, having that

background, that would be a real red flag.

Yeah, I don't know the specifics on behind that and why he was, you know, associated with the children's ministry.

They weren't going to say anything.

They just said, oh, it's fine.

So and then sort of just to veer off real quick a little bit, but still with the forgiveness thing, if

you've got somebody who I know that scriptures teaches us, you know, if somebody sins against you

seven times, you forgive them seven times, 77, all that fun stuff.

But what if, you know, and you're supposed to sort of not hold a record of wrongs that have been done to you.

But what if there is somebody that continuously, you know, you know, you're trying to

forgive them each time that they wrong you, let's just say.

And, you know, you're doing your best to forgive that.

But it's a recurring action.

And then years go by.

I mean, are you supposed to come at them as you've just done this to me this one time and let's

talk about it?

Or can you bring up the fact, you know, this has continued on for years and years and years

and it's not, you know what I mean?

Like, I'm not, you know, you don't want to hold it all against them.

But if they're, it's the same thing again and again.

I guess it's maybe splitting hairs.

I'm not sure, like, about forgiveness.

Well, I'll say this, because there's something I would want to say and then see what your reaction is to it.

But people talk about forgiveness.

And there's one thing you have to understand.

People think that if I don't say anything, I don't address it, that somehow that's better for them.

I'm going to, you know, it's going to help them.

It doesn't.

Not confronting someone's sin is a harmful thing to do to that person.

You're not doing them any good by not confronting them with their sin because if you don't

address it, they start to think it's more acceptable or they can get away with it.

And that's why you end up seeing people who go from church to church to church and do this.

And you're not doing them any good.

You're actually harming their spiritual well -being if you don't confront them.

Right.

But if you have been confronting them and they're, okay, you know, they ask for forgiveness for this.

And, you know, okay, you know, I forgive you.

Let's move on.

But then, you know, let's say every week I'm stealing money from your wallet

and then after years of this going on and years of the confrontation and I

forgive you, I forgive you, I forgive you, but I'm not showing signs of wanting to discontinue my actions.

Do you still hold the, I'm sorry, go on.

There's a, there's a, you know, there's wisdom, wisdom and forgiveness.

You forgive and you forgive.

In a marriage situation, you're going to forgive over and over and over and continue on in the same situation sometimes.

With a friend, you don't necessarily have to.

So circumstances and situations and motives and, you know, things, all this is

so subjective in a lot of areas that you can't, you know, neither

Andrew nor I can give just a blanket, here's what you do kind of a statement.

Each one, like a marriage situation, each one has specific things that are related only to that situation

and then solutions are catered to that.

So generically speaking, you want to be as forgiving as you can, but you want to be wise.

You don't want to endanger anybody unless God is calling you to do that.

And how would you know that?

Well, that's another discussion.

But for the most part, you know, the basics is you forgive as much as possible.

But if the person's having a problem manifesting true repentance and you continue to

forgive, that's okay.

But then wisdom would say, be careful, you know, and stuff like that.

That's all.

And like a guy who's got an addiction to porn and his wife's forgiving and forgiving and forgiving and every few months he falls

and she's been patient and stuff, then what do you do then?

Well, you know, you keep forgiving, but you restrict certain access in the home and

things like that because that's what's necessary.

That's wisdom.

So, you know, it just depends on situations and what's going on and things like that.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

So I think next up was...

Well, then I can say something to the Catholic.

Traditionalist.

You know, I said, let's talk about this stuff.

He says, well, I'd like to discuss it, but Matt and I always end up talking over each other and I'll just get muted.

So it's not edifying to the viewers.

Well, then you can type it out in here, make your statements.

I'll comment and correct your errors.

Yeah.

And then he'll just make the excuse that you're not representing him right.

Or, you know, it's always good to have the excuse to bail out.

The reason that I try to moderate in here and try not to have the talking over is so that you don't have that.

And, I mean, there are times where you talk over people and they don't talk over you.

Folks, and a lot of times what it is is you're trying to get further information, clarity, to answer things.

And people don't always understand that.

Before we bring the next person in, let me ask about that so people can understand that and learn.

Why is clarity important when discussing Apologetics, Matt?

I'm not sure what you just said.

Could you clarify?

Why is it...

Well, let me put it directly to you.

Why do you...

You know, I'm trying to be clear.

It's like that radio station back a year or two ago.

The guy comes up, he's from college, and he's like, what's your major?

And, for real, he said, and I did this, he goes, communications.

I go, what?

And he goes, communications.

And I said, okay, I'm not sure I understand.

So, your major is what?

He goes, communications.

And I said, what?

He goes, communicate.

And he stops himself.

And he goes, yeah, yeah, yeah.

But, yeah, Charlie says, that was lame, Matt, but he fell for it.

Okay, why clarify?

Was that Josh?

From the radio station?

No, it was somebody else.

I did it to Josh, too.

I did it to Josh, too.

I always got Josh.

You know, Josh was good.

He was fun.

Okay, so, why do you need specificity?

Specificity is like, the finer your cutting instrument, the more

precise you are, the more you can cut.

And so, what you need is precision.

If someone says, I'm a Calvinist, someone will say, you don't believe in free will.

What do you mean by free will?

You know what you mean.

Yeah, I know what I mean.

What do you think it means?

Well, you know, free will.

You know, choices.

I believe you make choices.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

And so, what they're doing is defining it in such a way and imposing it upon me.

Well, I want to know what they think, what they believe.

And this is why I asked for definitions.

It's one of the things I tell people.

Get definitions.

Get definitions.

Be precise as you can.

And go on.

But, unfortunately, a lot of times, what people will do when they realize I'm doing that with them, they think I'm playing a game.

I go, no, I'm not.

I get to be very, very precise.

Because I know my theology so well in many areas that I need to know exactly what particular nuance of something they're holding to

to know what area of theology it's going to relate to.

So, that's what I do.

And it's also that they may not even understand the terminology well enough to know the

differences.

And so, sometimes you may answer something and not give them the right answer that really is the answer they're looking for unless you know what

they're asking.

So, yeah, with that, let's see.

The first one in After Cat was Edward.

So, Edward, if you want to unmute yourself, I added you to the Hangout.

If you have any questions.

Okay, he unmuted himself.

I got his volume up here.

I don't know if he's...

I think he's on a phone.

So, he shouldn't have to worry about a mic.

We're going to give him a couple more seconds.

You can try typing something in chat.

I'll add Edison.

And when we hear from Edward, then we'll come back to him.

So, we haven't forgotten about you, Edward.

We'll just come back when you get the mic working.

You may have to come out and come back in.

So, Edison, I've unmuted you.

Or I've added you, I should say, if you want to unmute yourself.

And if you have any questions, you can ask them.

All right.

Maybe we have to do something.

Let's see.

Control room.

Control room.

Okay.

I could try to unmute Edison.

Atomic, Charlie.

I don't see anybody else in there.

Edward, he's unmuted.

Let me mute him.

And then unmute him.

Because sometimes that'll do that.

Sometimes it'll work that way.

Okay.

Edison said something's wrong when the mic's not working.

Yes, we hear you now.

Yeah, we hear you.

Hold on.

The audience doesn't hear him.

So, I'm going to eject your other one so that we don't take up a spot.

All right.

Now you're in, and people can hear you online.

So, go ahead.

What's your question, Edward?

Yes.

I've been dealing with a situation.

I got saved in 2008.

And I understand that I have been saved and

God has taken care of my past sins.

The issue that I'm dealing with is that I know that God has, you

know, forgiven me for those things.

But I can't seem to find the space to really

forgive myself.

And not only that, I'm also having

issues with a lot of the stuff like bad habits and stuff like

that that I've tried to break and I haven't been able to do it.

Let's talk about something.

You're talking about a lot of things here.

But you said, forgive yourself.

Yeah.

So, is that in the Bible?

1 John 1 9 says...

If we confess our sins, He's faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So, that's Him forgiving us and confessing our sins to God.

Right.

But you said, forgive yourself.

Well, I don't know.

Maybe I'm going off on the wrong way here.

But it seems to me that if my faith is strong enough

and I understand.

No, no, no.

It's just that.

People will say things and they mean what they say generally.

So, no, they don't.

And there's something underlying in that.

Forgiving yourself.

This is the first thing you said.

Actually, I think it was the second.

God forgives you.

But you're having trouble forgiving yourself.

We didn't talk about that.

Because, for one thing, it's not a biblical concept.

And so, you're not forgiving yourself.

God is forgiving you.

And so, one thing I could say is So, who the heck are you then to not accept and trust in

the complete forgiveness of God?

That could be a comment, I could say.

Or sometimes people, when they say they have to forgive themselves, what they're trying to do is get rid of the guilt

of the feeling and things like that that's associated with that because if they forgive themselves, so to speak, then they don't feel the guilt

anymore.

Is that really what's going on?

Well, you kind of hit it from both ends.

Okay, so let me tell you something.

Years ago, I did something really bad.

Really bad.

And I was forgiven by the Lord, but I wasn't letting it go.

Some people might use the phrase, forgive yourself.

What I did was really wrong, really, really bad.

And yet, God, in His mercy, forgave me.

And I had trouble letting that go, getting rid of it.

Until finally, someone sat me down and talked to me and lectured me

and rebuked me in love saying, who are you to hold on to that which God has

released?

And I said, yes, I understand that, but I feel bad.

Who are you?

How dare you hold on to this when God has forgiven it by His blood?

Well, yes, but this conversation went on like this for like a half hour until finally I realized

that this idea of holding on to guilt and not forgiving ourselves that phrase is

something we do because first of all, we know we're unrighteous, we know we're guilty, and we deserve punishment.

That's true.

But then what we do is we look at the cross without going to the cross.

We look at that place of forgiveness, but sometimes we don't go and, so to speak,

reach our hands out and touch that wood and know that that

place of forgiveness wipes away what we've done.

And then at that point, we're obligated to release it because if we

don't release it, we're holding on to that which God has released, and that would be warring

against God, and that is another sin.

See the problem?

I know.

That's what I used to do a lot.

Also, on a biblical standpoint, isn't the forgiveness of sins requiring shed

blood?

Yeah, in a biblical sense, yeah, and since he's a Christian, that's already occurred, and he's trusted in Christ.

Right.

So if it requires shed blood, how is one forgiving himself when the sin is already been

forgiven by Christ?

Right.

That's what we're talking about.

What does that phrase mean?

It means they're not letting go of it.

Well, I guess probably the real

underlying issue would be trust.

In what?

Well, all my life, I've had problems with

trusting people, trusting things from things back in my past.

You trust God?

I say that I do, but sometimes my actions don't really show it.

Yeah, I'm glad you said that, because welcome to the club.

Honesty.

We trust God for our salvation, but sometimes nothing more.

We trust God to forgive us, but sometimes we don't want to trust him to really, really, really

forgive us in such a way that what we could do is literally stand before the person

of Jesus.

Our eyes are filled with tears as they run down our cheeks, and we know our sin and what is aching

and what is hurting us, and yet he knows too, and we take a step forward towards him, and he

opens his arms and no condemnation at all is there in that embrace.

This is the thing we as Christians have to learn to accept, and it's hard to do because we know we're not

worthy of it, and accepting such great grace is hard to do

because we're sinners at the core.

This is why it's important to know what the truth is in your head, and then ask God to

work it down into your heart.

Let the truth massage your soul into compliance of forgiveness.

Once you have that, you'll have assurance as well, and you'll have release, and then you'll be able to minister

to others.

As well.

Well, you know, I've actually got quite a

testimony that I've never told anybody about because I

left when I pretty much had to leave home when I was about 15 years old just to survive.

Wow.

And I ended up on the streets of Los Angeles and

at that age that got pretty bad.

Yeah.

There was a lot of years I did nothing but just hijack up and down the country staying in

shelters and stuff.

It wasn't until about 1994

until I actually stabilized and was able to land in one spot

and start trying to make something out of my

life as late as it was.

That's okay.

And there's a lot of times I did a lot of

bad, bad things back then.

I.

Put it in the mode of survival.

You were in great, great, great sin.

Yeah.

And you need to be judged for it and you should go to hell for it.

You filthy, vile, scummy sinner for doing what you had to do and doing what you did.

You deserve it.

But God.

But God.

But God in the person of Jesus Christ on that cross knew exactly what you would do even

on that cross and yet chose to save you and chose to cleanse you.

Man, what the heck?

Why would he do that?

Knowing what you were like.

Knowing what you're going to do.

Why would he dare save someone like you?

You filthy, scummy scoundrel of a heathen slime dog.

Why would he do that?

Why would he do that for any of us?

I've got some similar stuff that I don't like to talk about only in private conversation.

Why is God saving us?

Because of what's in him.

Not because of what's in us.

Because of who he is.

Not because of who you are.

And this is the thing you've got to love or learn to accept.

And I know I can say it and I know you know it.

But I also know it's a hard thing to let loose.

But the thing is the blood of Christ is far greater than your greatest sin multiplied a

million times.

Because there is no comparison to the infinite value of God's sacrifice on that cross.

And nothing that you have done or can do will separate you from the love of God.

And you've just got to realize that you are worth damning.

But because of God's love for you now your worth is in Christ.

And his love for you is inviolate, immovable and unconditional.

You've got to let it go and fall into that love embrace of the Lord.

Just picture him on that road as you walk up to him and he's standing there looking at you

and you're walking towards him and you are remembering and

going through the memories of the vile sins you've committed.

And the closer you get to him, the more his arms open up for you.

And when you fall into them he just says he loves you and he forgives you.

That's it.

Hey Matt, what might be helpful for Edward is for you to maybe go through the scriptures to show

when it was his sin was paid for.

Because I think to realize that it's not an issue of him letting it go.

Ed, what do you think of what I said though?

Well I know that what you said is right.

But it's very difficult.

It's not something that you just snap your fingers and it happens.

I know.

You know he paid for all your sins on the cross, right?

Right. I do definitely know that.

Alright.

Then what I would do if I were in the room with you with a smile on my face.

I'd point my finger in your face and say, stop it.

Stop it.

Stop it.

And it would take a while until you broke in your heart and

gave that to God as well.

It just takes time.

I know.

It takes time.

You know and then some of the bad habits that I've got that

I've tried to break and stop and you know I do all kinds of stuff

like I'm going to make a calendar and I'm going to ask every day that I don't do this

and stuff like that and none of that just seems to work and

it's you know it's got to

the point to where I'm even having a difficult time trying to pray

because I feel like you know why am I going to

ask God to forgive me for this if I know I'm going to turn

around and do it again?

Because.

His love for you is greater than your bad habits and your failures.

Welcome to the club.

Every one of us does this.

I'm not saying it's okay but every one of us does this.

Okay?

Every one of us.

When you're at the cross kneeling on your knees in

that dirty ground and you can see the blood mixing with the

dirt and you look to your right and look to your left you'll see

others just like you there myself included and all we have

is our trust in Christ and it takes time particularly for sometimes with people who've gone

through such things that the sin has left a brand and an imprint

upon our hearts.

Sometimes it's hard to let it go and to rip it away from us because it's painful to do that because in a

sense we keep them because we want to punish ourselves in order to make

ourselves feel worthy enough to come to the cross.

Sometimes that's the case and that is a greater sin.

So it's self mortification.

Yeah self mortification is good in one sense but if it's for the punishment of ourselves to be

made worthy to come to the cross then it becomes heresy.

Okay.

So I used to do that.

I had a certain issue which I don't have anymore but years ago and I would not come to the cross and be

forgiven or receive that forgiveness or trust in Christ until three or four days had gone by after I'd punished myself

by feeling guilty and beating myself up enough then I felt worthy to go to the cross literally could not see that

until one day I'm in prayer after I spent a few days once again doing this.

The Holy Spirit just said you arrogant fool you either make yourself

feel bad in order to be worthy to be forgiven and the light went on and I repented of that

as well.

We sin in all kinds of ways.

The solution is the blood of Christ on that cross and you gotta trust it even beyond your

ability to understand and beyond your ability to feel it takes

practice.

Man.

Okay.

Yeah.

Alright.

Did that help any?

Thank you.

Sure.

I'm reminded of what David said.

I think it's in Psalms where he says he felt that the Lord's hand was heavy upon him because of

unconfessed sin and I feel that you're feeling that weight

that God is kind of pressing you on and the only thing I can really

recommend you do is to confess that sin get it out in the open share

it with your pastor share it with your friends share it with your spouse whatever you have and

get that weight lifted from you you know it's what

helps us to become more free from that sin that burden.

I've shared it before.

But it just I don't know for some reason I guess I'm just not letting it go.

Well you know there's a couple things.

To keep in mind too that we can tend to

get used to something even something that's harmful to us.

We tend to get more comfortable with that and not want to let things

go.

Because we're more comfortable with beating ourselves up than the

unknown of what is it like if we just let it go.

And I think the thing to recognize it's not an issue of is God going to

forgive me or something like that.

Because you know Christ died 2 ,000 years ago.

That's when that punishment was paid whatever sin it is in your life.

If you're a believer in Jesus Christ that was paid at the cross not when you ask for forgiveness.

So it's already been paid for it's already done it's already been forgiven.

The issue is we can get ourselves in a state of bitterness where we hold on

to something.

Bitterness doesn't always have to be against another person.

It could be against ourselves.

But we hold on to something in the past and that actually stops us from moving forward in the future.

And so you'd actually be stunting your own spiritual growth by holding on to it.

That's what I'm.

Afraid is happening because you know I I go

to church and I come home.

And I just feel like the worst Christian that could ever be on the face of

the earth.

Sometimes it just it just you know

when I'm in the building it seems to feel good but when I come out the doors

it's like reality just kind of slaps me in the face and says here you are again

you know so.

Well many of us have you know things that we just don't want to let go of

because in a weird sense like Matt was saying I mean some people

think like they feel better about themselves by thinking they somehow owe something.

You and I and Matt and John none of us can pay

what it would take for our sin.

It took an eternal being God to do it so but

we feel like we have to somehow earn it.

I mean a thing is there's many people who believe that

we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

And yet when it comes to our sanctification after we're regenerate they live life as if

we're saved by works as if we have to earn that righteousness somehow.

We can't earn it at all.

We can't earn it to get into the kingdom and we can't earn it to stay in the kingdom.

It's all done by Christ.

And that's where sometimes you feel kind of helpless

because you know there's really just nothing.

You know it's in God's hands it's up to you

to accept it.

But you know

I don't know what I'm trying to say but it's hard to explain.

Well the thing is it's something you've gotten used to and

it's going to take a change and like Matt said you have to stop and it's

not an issue of it's not a thinking issue as much as it is an emotional issue.

That's why Matt was saying you just have to know what's right and then ask God to work it

down into your heart.

Okay.

And hey Matt this is two minutes but I don't know.

This is what you were talking to Edward.

You were saying to him you know you just have to stop it and

it made me think of this.

This is a show from years ago that someone sent me but you'll find this funny.

So this goes along with what you were saying.

Bob Newhart.

I have this fear of being buried alive in a box.

Can you hear that.

Okay.

I start thinking about being buried alive and I begin to panic.

Has anyone ever tried to bury you alive in a box.

No but truly thinking about it does make my life horrible.

I can't go through tunnels or be in an elevator or in a

house anything boxy.

So what you're saying is you're claustrophobic.

Yes that's it all right.

Let's go Katherine.

I'm going to say two words to you right now.

I want you to listen to them very very carefully.

Then I want you to take them out of the office with you and incorporate them into your life.

Shall I write them down well.

If it makes you comfortable it's just two words most people can remember them.

Okay you ready.

Yes

stop it.

Yes I get it.

So what are you saying.

You know it's funny I say two simple words and I cannot tell you the amount of people who

say exactly the same thing you're saying.

This is not Yiddish Katherine.

This is English stop it so I should just stop it.

There you go.

I mean you don't want to go through life being scared of being buried alive in a box.

Do you.

That sounds frightening.

Then stop it.

I can't.

I mean it's been with me since childhood.

So that's the shorter version of it.

Yeah there's a nine minute version where he just keeps yelling at the person.

Stop it.

But I.

So you can go see that one.

I don't know if Matt's ever seen that but Matt you should definitely watch the eight minute version.

Oh yeah I've seen it before.

Stop it.

That's right.

Stop it.

He's pretty funny actually.

He was a comedian before he got on the show and he was quite talented.

It's pretty good so I think what you're telling Edward is that he should

stop it.

Yeah I mean that with a smile on my face but I know that it's not easy to do that but that's what we're obligated to do and aim for

and it takes practice.

That's why I said it takes practice it takes a while and it does.

You know you can say stop it but you know that's funny but that's what we're intending to do

but it's not always easy.

Yeah it's continuous work it is.

And you'll get better at it.

Just remember that God loves you even though he knows everything about you.

Well thank you very much.

Sure sounds good.

If this makes you feel any better.

God even loves Matt Slick so if he could love him he could love you.

I also know somebody else who's had a similar experience to you and he

has overcome it.

Seriously.

Alright.

Well thank you again and God bless and have a good evening.

You're always welcome to come back in.

Maybe not.

Yeah you are Matt.

I've met you before.

Ok.

Sorry I don't recall.

I put your faucet on your sink.

I think about you every now and then.

Man you came over and helped that was awesome.

I remember that.

Yeah thanks.

I still use that.

I wonder what happened to that guy.

I appreciate that.

Yeah I'm no good at that kind of thing and this guy came over and helped out.

It was really good.

I had a good time with you man.

Thank you.

Sure I'll let you get on to somebody else.

Well Edward.

To make you feel better the next person that's gonna come in.

Matt couldn't remember him either.

In fact in fact we went to Washington DC.

We're sitting outside a sushi place.

Matt's like who are we gonna meet.

I'm like this guy.

Josh.

He's the one that called into the show.

I give the background.

He goes ok so who are we here meeting Josh.

The guy that called in the show used karma as a way to try to figure out if a girl was right to

date him.

So we're sitting down.

Josh gets there.

Matt turns to me who's this guy.

Again.

It's Josh.

Now Matt knows Josh.

Josh who.

Yeah we sat across from each other and Josh was just I could tell he couldn't believe he was sitting across the table from Matt

Slick.

He was like wow I can't believe this and then he told me he could have helped me on the

subway and refused to do it and so it was a really interesting time right.

Josh.

No I'm kidding it was great.

I remember being out there there were so many things going on and Josh came in.

We all had a great time.

So Josh so you could ask your question.

Come on Josh.

For some reason I couldn't do it until just now.

Am I coming through.

Ok yeah.

Well I actually had a question for a friend that I asked Andrew a couple weeks ago that I'll throw this

one out first.

A friend of mine he contributes to both Karma and Striving for

Eternity.

He wanted to ask tell him to get off the fence and decide one or the other

lukewarm stuff isn't going to work so he was wondering your guys'

thoughts on the analogy of faith like scripture interprets scripture and

how those would differ between Andrew's dispensational theology and Matt's.

Covenantal theology it has to do with intelligence and so there's the answer

yes actually I think your IQ is higher than mine.

Have you been tested.

Well I don't.

I've been tested I think on the internet in the 130s the

140s it varied quite a bit.

I didn't do anything after that.

You know what Abraham Lincoln said about the internet right.

Abraham Lincoln said you can't trust anything on the internet that's for sure.

Some people are still trying to figure that out.

Abraham Lincoln.

Someone asked Abraham Lincoln how long should a man's legs be he said just long enough to reach the ground.

You know who.

Invented the internet right.

What was his name.

Al Gore.

He claimed he created the internet.

He didn't realize.

Ok so Josh had a question or something like that.

I don't know what he's looking at.

Not looking at us.

How's your marriage going.

I'm still married.

Rings on.

Everything it hasn't gone that bad.

It's definitely blessed.

Good.

She's a good woman anyway.

Go ahead.

So my friend just had a question about actually you guys both met him.

You met him at a conference.

He wanted me to ask the analogy of faith scripture interprets scripture and how that relates.

Where does that cause differences in Andrew's dispensational theology versus your covenant theology.

Matt Presbyterian covenant theology.

Interpretive differences.

Like interpretive differences.

Scripture interprets scripture.

He imposes things upon scripture.

I get things out of scripture.

I would say the reverse is true.

I'm a covenantalist.

He's a man -made humanist dispensationalist.

So he's going to read the covenant into scripture and I'm just going to look at the scripture and see what it says.

Here would be the thing Matt maybe we could talk about this part.

This is where we'd see a difference.

I would look at the Old Testament.

This is really where it usually comes in is how do we interpret the Old Testament.

I would interpret the Old Testament in its context and then look to

carry into it to see if the New Testament gives further revelation to what the Old Testament

says.

I personally wouldn't look to see that.

I have to find Christ in every book of the Bible.

I can look at the book of Song of Solomon and say that it describes what the love within a marriage should

be.

I don't have to say that.

That's Jesus Christ in the church.

I don't know if you would go there.

With Song of Solomon it's about a husband and a wife and having love for each other.

But there is something there in Christ because Jesus said in John 5, 3, 9 you search the scriptures because in them you think of eternal life but it is

these that bear witness of me.

I would say that the scriptures do.

I just wouldn't say that every verse does which some say that every verse has to point to

Christ.

Would you say that you interpret the Old Testament in light of the New.

Would you hold to that position.

Of course, it's the New Testament that sheds light on the New not the other way around

because this is where I think we might have differences.

I would interpret the Old Testament and look to the New to shed light on but I would interpret the Old Testament

in light of the Old Testament.

Of course you do.

In hermeneutics you look at what it says in its immediate context.

That's it, period, that's what you do.

However, whenever the New Testament addresses anything in the Old Testament the New Testament automatically takes

validity and superiority over any possible interpretation anyone might have in the Old Testament.

And I would agree with that and that's the thing.

A lot of people the nuances I think some folks don't.

It's easier to build a straw man and attack that than actually deal with what each other's position would be.

Yeah I think the differences there are less than people make them out to be, I'll put

it that way.

They can be carried too far.

Yeah I think when here would be a good

difference that you and I would have taken the Old Testament.

Let's take an example.

You and I have talked about and folks, if you want to see a longer discussion, Matt and I have discussed our differences on covenant

theology and dispensationalism on the Striving Fraternity YouTube channel and the theological

discussions playlist, there will be one on covenant theology versus dispensationalism

and one of the areas you and I disagreed, Matt was on whether the offering, Abraham's

offering of Isaac was a type of Christ.

You say that you think he is a type of Christ and I say there's a lot of similarities but I don't go as far as saying a definite type

because the New Testament or the scriptures don't say specifically he is a type of Christ

so I stop at saying if the scriptures say it's a type, then it's a type.

If it doesn't, I say there's similarities.

You think would go further and maybe you could expound that and that would explain some of the differences.

Yeah, I just.

Used my head and the similarities are so strong that obviously he's a type of Christ.

Well I agree.

That the similarities are strong.

I just don't say it is.

I say that similarities are strong.

That would be the difference.

Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad.

And that's what Jesus says in John 8 57.

And so they said 56, you're not yet 40 years old, 50 years old.

You've seen Abraham, truly truly I say to you before Abraham was, I am so he was saying that Abraham saw

his day.

So Jesus is relating back to Abraham and the only place that that would relate to say he saw my day.

You're talking about the crucifixion and the issue and that's Genesis 22 -23.

So Jesus himself points to that as being something representative of him.

Yeah but that's I wouldn't assume that that's a connection to the offering.

What day was he talking about?

He would.

Talk about the future.

To Abraham it would be the future crucifixion of Christ.

Ok.

There you go, and so where's the only place where Abraham and Isaac did anything that would be similar to anything like the

crucifixion.

We don't have everything recorded in scripture.

What do we have in scripture.

And it would be what?

Yeah.

I wouldn't and this is where we make the real distinction.

I won't.

I take a to use the Presbyterian view.

Since you're a Presbyterian I'll take a regulative principle to interpretation and not go beyond what

scripture says and that's my position.

I'll disagree with John in YouTube who says dispensationalism turns Jesus

into antichrist doesn't understand dispensationalism if he's arguing that.

I wouldn't agree with that either but you know it's not a leap to say that

Isaac is a type when he carried wood up the hill Jesus carried wood up on the hill.

He's the only begotten son.

The three people were there, the trinity.

More types and stuff like that.

But anyway let's move on let's let someone else ask some questions it'd be good.

I think I agree there's some strong similarities.

Josh what was your follow up question.

So.

The second question and I guess I can make this the one the one that I posted on the side was just

about similarities between the concept of prevenient grace

and condign merit.

Is there similarity or different kinds of merit in the Roman Catholic system.

Prevenient grace is the grace that comes before that enables a person's free will

to then be able to be neutralized enough to be able to choose God of its own

free action and free willness.

And so it's kind of a restorative state to the pre -fall condition.

There's different ways it's been stated.

Condign merit is merit that God I can see why you'd say it was

similar but there's differences.

Condign merit would be that merit that God like I said honor your mother and your father where he

obligates himself to reward the person for those things.

But condign merit is for those who are already in the grace of God according to Catholicism and where prevenient

grace is not for someone in the grace of God in a state of salvation but something that comes before

they're saved.

I should have specified.

And said one of the end goals

of prevenient grace.

And congruent merit and condign in this case.

Yeah and condign merit but one of I should have stated that more

one of the ends which is like regeneration and

effecting of God's salvation and

condign merit just in the way that they their mode of operation.

Yeah there are some similarities I would think.

Think about that some more so you can find out some more similarities.

I know it boils down to cooperation with grace.

That's really.

Oh yeah that's humanism.

It's man man's final word.

I give you permission.

God.

I have to be the one who says yes to God.

He can't do these things he can't move me.

I have to say yes.

It's just arrogance.

It's humanistic philosophy.

That's what it is.

Oh another question and I can make this the last one for I have a whole

list of them that have been stacking up over the past number of weeks.

By the way I'm not looking away from you guys.

I got another computer screen here.

I don't have the computer for it yet.

And so you guys are on this screen.

You have a computer screen.

It doesn't have a computer for it yet so you're staring at a blank screen.

No I'm staring at you guys over here.

Blank screen is like right in front of the or right behind the camera.

Once you put the camera on the screen that works.

Whoa that was a toughie.

That was something.

It's huge it's huge it's huge.

It's a simple thing.

So.

And I heard Matt mentioned this a couple weeks ago.

I love that he mentioned it and I wanted to get both of your guys thoughts on this.

But Matt you went into the doctrine of divine simplicity a little bit a couple few weeks ago.

I was.

So I was.

I guess my question about that would be could you go over that again.

And I just wanted to get Andrew's thoughts.

And I guess what it is.

And biblically how do we establish that.

Because I think that's such an important concept to grasp in theology and in.

Apologetics with several groups.

Well divine simplicity basically is saying that God is without parts right right.

So I agree.

He's not without parts.

He doesn't have parts like a left part, a up part, a down part front part, back part.

So he's.

That's it.

Well and you mentioned I think the other week is it all composition

or is it just is it just composition in a sense of like

spatial and with.

If it was spatial then it would be a left and a right and a front and a back so that can't be with God.

Okay I'm waiting.

I'm drawing stuff out of you on purpose.

I'm giving you a hard time.

I want you to speak in here.

Well because in a lot of what's the first thing we do.

First thing we do define our terms.

Okay so let's define our terms.

What is divine simplicity.

Yes well I want to ask you that like your thoughts on it.

Divine simplicity is basically and there's different levels of it but it's basically that

there are no parts to God's existence.

One part isn't really different than another part.

It's all one whole kind of a thing.

But attributes manifest out of this divine simplicity.

Well it all becomes an issue of what is divine simplicity and if we can't figure that out we

really can't discuss or answer the questions right.

So uh so he doesn't have any physical form.

We know that and yet it's a problem to discuss the

simplicity of God when we can't relate to God.

One of the doctrines I like about God is that he is wholly other completely other than what we are

and so we can't relate to him in a good way and understand him.

Um completely and totally.

So when we talk about divine simplicity what we're actually talking about is the ontological essence of God's nature.

And so to begin the question is problematic.

And so what we have to do is postulate logical possibilities when we come to this and we want

to not say that God has parts because when we say parts a triangle has three parts so to

speak a left, right leg, a bottom leg and so then we have three parts but that's not

what God is.

He's not a a triangular issue where the

parts give him totality.

And so when we talk about the issue of the doctrine of the trinity Father, Son, Holy Spirit are we going to say he has

parts?

Well no we're not now unfortunately sometimes when I'm talking to somebody on the radio

and they have a very very very rudimentary level of understanding and logic and

analogies and particularly Christian Revelation sometimes I will say just look at

them Father, Son, Holy Spirit has three parts of the same thing and I say I often will say but I don't

like using the term parts because it's not the right way to say it but because of our discussion where we're at right now

we can start there and move on beyond that.

And the reason I have that difficulty there is because it's a difficult thing to discuss the very nature and essence of God.

Period you know the term on the divine simplicity we're

discussing the very ontological nature and essence of God who manifests himself as a triune being

Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Well some would say well that's parts but it's not but we say

that the totality of God is one essence divinity that

divinity has its nature that when we see it through the lens of scripture

we see three persons and just as a colored lens or refracting lens or

whatever lens will distort to some degree that which we're seeing if there's no distortion it's not doing

anything.

We're talking about a camera that lets you take a picture but something that interprets one thing to another these kind

of lenses that are refracting or put colors or whatever where it changes in order to make us see things like

x -rays we can't see with our naked eye we need something there to make it visible to us.

And so this differentiation this lensing effect alters

the actuality to bring it into a place where we can see it.

And so with the divine nature of God the scriptures take that kind of a place and

the person of Jesus does too in that there's a lensing in that sense of the true nature of God and

what we are left with is the triune being the essence of God.

But we know on the other side of that lens that God is one whole essence and one whole

nature.

The ontological essence of God is he is divine.

And the nature of that divinity when expressed through the lens of scripture results in three persons.

We wouldn't say that they're three parts but we would say three persons in the one God but

they're not parts because a part can be taken apart and separated but not so

in the divine Godhead.

So this is why the terminology each terminology regarding this becomes problematic

and this is why I believe that's divine simplicity.

The simplicity of God is nature.

God needs to be more thoroughly explained.

But there are aspects of God too we see it's like when we talk about decrees of God

there's the wills of God the decretive will, the prescriptive will the permissive will.

Well we wouldn't say that there's actually a will in God that's a decretive, but another will separate from that

that is prescriptive and another part of his will.

We wouldn't say that we would say that the manifestation of that is seen in different ways that we comprehend

and this points back to the simplicity of God which actually is an issue dealing with his very nature and essence.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself but go ahead.

Yeah.

Did you want to say something Andrew.

Thank you for elaborating on that.

No I think Matt did a fine job.

I don't know don't let them know.

I said that though.

I think it's an important.

Discussion.

Because especially when we're talking to different groups like

Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or something like that or even when we're discussing

discussing issues like Calvinism or something like that.

Because I think a lot of people read scripture and they think that when it describes God's actions that he

acts in the same manner that we do like kind of anthropomorphism

and things like that are not taken into account.

But I think that's completely it's relevant to the

discussion.

Because if God is simple well and this is actually I should ask this first.

But do you think that like what would the relation be between God's simplicity

and God's like impassibility.

Because if God's without parts then is it not true that God doesn't experience states.

Are there different categories that you're talking about because a part

is different than effect.

Because God can God be effected by our emotions.

Impassibility for those who don't know means that God doesn't feel emotions.

Because emotions tend to imply on a human level an

effect upon our essence and our nature.

God can't be effected because immutable.

Therefore not the best answer.

But therefore a lot of people say that he's impassible.

He's not able to be effected and feel pain and suffering.

Except that the Bible speaks to the contrary.

God regretted that he made man.

I think I wrote an article on this, the impassibility of God and I think I found some scriptures that talk about

these things, let's see impassibility, let's see.

I got it a while back because I remember going through looking for verses that

show that God feels, and he does and here we go he

loves, and I can give you the references.

I have references for each one of these.

He loves, he hates, he has compassion, he grieves he expresses joy, he rejoices.

So if impassibility means God can't really feel these things then why does the Bible say he can.

So the way they're defining their impassibility has to be examined.

Can God be emotionally effected by what we do?

Yes the Bible says so.

And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth.

And he was grieved in his heart, Genesis 6 6, well why was he sorry?

Because of their sin he's grieved, so I would have to say it looks like he was effected.

Well then the question comes up, how can he be effected if he ordained it?

Well the analogy I use in this context is my wife and I are going to decide to have children.

And we decide to have children.

Well because we know that our children are going to be rebellious.

We know that they're going to be recalcitrant.

We know that they're going to be wonderful.

We know that they're going to be whatever.

Well when it occurs it doesn't mean that I'm not going to experience it, I knew you would do that so I don't feel anything, I knew that you would say that

I don't feel anything.

I knew that and that's why I don't care.

It wouldn't be like that.

And so one of the things that I think is relevant at this point is to understand that God has motions.

He has emotions.

Love is an emotion as well as a commitment and a decision.

Hatred is an emotion as well.

And he clearly hates, he has compassion he expresses joy, do not be grieved.

For the joy of the Lord is your strength.

Nehemiah 8 .10.

And God rejoices.

For as a young man marries a virgin.

So your sons will marry you.

And as a bridegroom rejoices over the bride.

So your God will rejoice over you.

These are emotional conditions and states.

So God is expressing to us what represents what's going on inside of him.

And it's an anthropomorphism of course through the lens of scripture.

But the thing is, it's saying he rejoices, has joy grieves, compassion, hates and loves.

So that we should say the same thing.

Yeah I think.

The issue comes in when, and not with just like with certain people when we're talking about this,

is that they think that that God experiences changes in emotional state in the same way that

we do in a kind of well we can't say yes or no.

Well I mean I mean like well and can you explain a little bit

well they said he experiences emotions the same way we do.

Well in some ways yes.

In some ways no, in some ways yes because he rejoices and we rejoice so in that similar he

does, there's a sense in which that's the case, but how can we say that the infinite God of the universe,

we know how he feels things get off of the throne and get down in the

gutter we belong, we can't say that about God, but through the revelation of the word we can say well yeah, he

expresses himself in emotional ways, many times and so we can say yes, there's that sense.

What I like to say is that we can know God sufficiently, not exhaustively.

And these issues deal with the difference between sufficiency and inexhaustibility or

exhaustibility in the knowledge of something.

So we can say yes we know him sufficiently, we understand his emotions sufficiently, but it doesn't mean that we

exhaustively understand how it works with God and thereby can say yes, this is how it works.

We just don't do that.

Sorry, I made Catholic leave traditional Catholic leave here.

He's back, let me give him.

Well no, because we have someone else that was in before him.

This is why people get in.

Early, the earlier you get in you get in line, we do it in order or try to.

So next one up is Stan the man.

So Stan you can unmute yourself.

See if maybe I can.

Alright, there I am.

I unmuted you, so you should be good Stan.

Alright, Andrew can you hear me?

Andrew, great my question basically came up.

I had a conversation, a discussion with a woman named Holly who claims to be a Christian, as far as I

can tell she is, and she brought up Genesis 2 when God used the word helper.

He used the word, I hope I pronounced it right ezr and that word means

strong helper or strong power.

And the initial intention when God created man and woman is that there would not be

they would not have roles like we see today, man was not to rule over woman, they were to be equal they

would be strong power, strong helper to Adam, no roles,

roles came as an afterthought or as a result of I should say of sin entering the world and thus

that is the end result.

That's why today we have roles in church of which the male the man is to

be pastor.

All of the roles can be filled by women as well as I understand it.

So anyhow, if anyone can help on that word ezr and what the difference in men and women roles

are in general and in the church, I would appreciate it, thank you.

Yeah, I'd love to jump on that one.

Because you put that link and information in there earlier I was researching the word ezr and it occurs

21 times in the Hebrew Bible and so I was looking at it and when we look

at Strong's Concordance, it says help times of help, help mate help succor

S -U -C -C -O -U -R succor, I think that's what I pronounced, I'm not sure or one who helps

so what's happening with that logic that the people were giving in that article is bad.

Now, if you go to 1 Timothy 2, 12 and 13 I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man

but to remain silent, for Adam was first created so Paul the Apostle

is saying that the issue of authority is based upon the first created order, and that was before the

fall, so what Paul the Apostle is telling us is that there's an authoritative thing related to the order of

creation and there's a doctrine called primogeniture the first born male

has more rights than a second and third born male in a particular family and this concept in part

is probably arrived at out of Genesis created order, so furthermore before the fall

Adam named the animals designating his authority over them to tell them this is what you are this is what

you are, this is what you are and you don't do that if they're all equal the animals could name him, which doesn't make sense,

but okay, so then when Eve came on the scene, he named her as well and so this is a designation

of basically a realm of authority that was there, and Paul

references that in 1st Timothy 2 .12 and 13 in relationship to the teaching order which he

relates back to before the fall, so this bit about Ezer being

something, or Ezer being something that is only after the fall, that this is the authority issues

after the fall and therefore women can hold those offices as pastor and elder is really

stupid and the reason is, is because the Bible says in

1st Timothy 3 in Titus chapter 1, that the elder is to be

a man of one woman if the person wants to say look, before the fall, this is how

it's supposed to be so that's how can we know that after the fall it doesn't matter, which I've already refuted with the issue of the authority

issue but I'd say, so what you're telling me then is that if the authority issue is

before the fall and there's no authority, which isn't true, then you're saying that

what it's supposed to be is that it's supposed to be completely equal so women can be pastors and elders, that's right, then why does Paul

command us to have the elders be a ne 'er, man mias,

only one gunaikas, wife or woman.

Why does Paul tell us that?

Well, what are they going to say?

Well, because that was just a patriarchal society, then why does Paul equate it in 1st Timothy 2, 12 and 13

back to before the fall, as the issue of authority

you see the problem that they have?

Yes, I think I do, now it's getting Holly to climb on board, that'll be the hard part.

Get who?

Holly, the woman that initially put the.

Note out, have her call up and I'll be polite and I'll answer her and I'll show you

how that doctrine can lead to a denial of the atonement.

Not that it is but that you connect the dots and I can do it if you want, how it can lead to a

denial of the atoning sacrifice.

Ok.

I will advise her to come on Palogenetics Live and ask.

And I'll be polite, I'm not going to stomp her or anything like that, but I'll just say look, here's the thing, this is what it says

if you want to say that, let her make her case and I read that article, I scanned through it and this is a problem with

someone making a doctrine out of a single word not a good thing.

I totally agree with that and when she used a single word that was my first thing is you gotta read it in the

context and I don't have the acumen off the top of my head to answer an article like that but thank you for

your time in answering.

Sure man, no problem man, anytime.

God bless, thanks.

Sure.

Thanks Dan.

And you know, we should a couple things to just give before we bring it here,

our Catholic friend.

Catholic?

Oh yeah we may have to carry this over to next week or the next

thing go ahead just real quick give

some shout outs to our advertisers and sponsors and that would be MyPillow, which

is a great pillow that both Matt and I use all the time and love, it's true

so it's not that we don't use this product.

It is a great pillow.

It is a great pillow.

It's awesome I feel like an idiot saying that but it's true.

Okay so I'm going to be.

Interviewing hopefully this month, Mike Liddell from MyPillow, the founder and one

of the things I'm going to ask him is where did you come up with the name MyPillow.

Because it always sounds so weird, I have my, my pillow.

Or Matt, do you have my pillow.

No I have my pillow, why?

What do I have your pillow for?

Do you have my pillow?

No I have mine.

The name is a little bit confusing, but it's a great pillow.

It stays the same firmness.

It really does help if you have issues sleeping like Matt does.

It can help you if you can just fall asleep like I do.

Well then maybe you just enjoy it but we

do enjoy our MyPillow.

If you want to pick one up and at the same time support the Matt Slick live radio show

you can call 1 -800 -944 -5396 1 -800

-944 -5396 1 -800 -944 -5396.

Let them know that you heard about the MyPillow here on Apologetics Live.

Also to let folks know the Christian podcast community is going to

be starting to take applications now for podcasters who want to podcast in our

community and partner with us and the thing is we're going to be starting to take them, we're going to be going slow

at first, but starting the week after next, Justin Peters is going to start

up his podcast called Didike.

You can actually subscribe to it now.

Just call it Didike?

That's what he's calling it the teaching, but go ahead.

Exactly right.

But he's a dispy, a dispy cessationist.

I'm going to have to call him up and give him a hard time.

But yeah, so he's going to be starting a show called Didike.

You can search for Justin Peters if you don't know how to spell Didike, but there's actually a couple of shows I found that say

something Didike or Didike something so but he's going to be starting up.

Theology Gals is moving over from their own their own onto

ours, there may be, we're in the works hopefully, if we get a thumbs up maybe

from Mr. John in the room here, but hopefully the council, who hosts our

after show, they might be coming over soon we hope.

And I'm trying to think we got a new podcast coming up, if you are interested in learning how to podcast we're going to be

starting one toward the end of this month called So You Want to Be a Podcaster.

You can subscribe to that one now as well too, and then I have mine split, my

rap report, I split myself, I have two personalities.

I was waiting for Matt to jump on that one, oh man you're on a roll.

I thought I'd give you that one.

That explains a lot.

I have my weekly podcast rap report, that's rap with two p's and then I have the rap report

daily, that's that Monday through Friday two minute one.

Those are some announcements we have.

Let's see.

For the remaining time, maybe we'll go a little bit long, we have about 20 minutes left and I'm bringing in

two Catholic traditionalists, so you're unmuted.

It looks like your volume's up.

I know you were commenting in the chat room so now you can ask the

questions you have.

I hope his mic is working from everything I can see.

There you go, good.

I don't know what it is with this tablet.

Every time I take the earphones off then I'm able to communicate.

So yeah, okay, no debate tonight, I'm just going to go ahead and ask a question, but I'm glad you brought that up about the

Didache, because I was listening to Tim Staples the other day on Catholic Answers and he said that the Didache

actually proves that the Catholic Church is the one true church, so I never read the Didache, so I don't know if that's true or not.

We weren't talking about the Didache, we were talking about the word Didache, but there is a book

referred to as the Didache which is an early.

It's not scripture, it's just an early instruction manual and I don't see how we

support the Catholic Church.

I'd love to see how what he said that the Didache, which I'm looking at right now

in Carm D -I -D -A -C -H -E Didache the teaching and

it's written before the end of the first century.

Well I do know that the Didache proves baptism, water baptism necessity of water baptism

and we never finished that debate.

It proves what?

Wait, wait, wait it proves what?

What did you say?

Baptism, that you have to get baptized.

Of course you have to get baptized.

Yeah.

We don't say you shouldn't get baptized.

You believe you have to get baptized?

You believe in that?

Yeah, we believe in getting baptized.

But you don't believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation.

No, we don't believe in salvation by works.

Well you know, we should really continue that debate that we had we never finished it, but we could do that another

time, maybe next week.

But I wanted to ask all of you a question with regards to you know we know

that Jesus, you know when they took him you know, in the garden of

Gethsemane, we know that he wasn't going to fight back.

But I just, I was curious about what if one of his apostles were taken by either the Romans or the

Jews.

What do you think Jesus.

What do you think his response would have been with regards to that when they were in Jerusalem.

I don't know.

Well personally, I don't think he would have allowed it, that's my personal view, I don't know, it's just.

You didn't say that, that he would have allowed it, you said what if they were taken, that's different than they wouldn't have allowed it, so you're just not

being consistent.

Well, I'm just saying that if they would have, if hypothetically they would have gone after one of his apostles I don't

think he would have allowed them to do that.

They did go after one of them, Peter.

You read the Bible, right?

That's already there.

Well they didn't actually take Peter.

I mean, they didn't, it's not like they actually went after Peter and took him to confiscate Peter and, you know

put him on trial.

That's what I'm talking about.

If they attempted to do something like that I don't think Jesus would have allowed that.

But I just wanted to get your opinions on that.

I don't have an opinion on it because scripture doesn't tell us, so, whatever.

Well, see.

I guess the simple answer is it would never have happened if Jesus didn't allow it because he's God

so it's not even worth.

So do you have a different question that's not a hypothetical one?

No, that's it.

I mean, that's pretty much it.

So you're not going to be there, Andrew next week, next Thursday?

Next Thursday I won't, Matt will be here and either he'll host it himself or we'll get someone in.

Probably Charlie.

Spline will help.

I was going to say probably Charlie.

OK, Charlie, well what do you say, Matt, you want to continue the discussion on

baptism next week?

If you want, come on in.

Anybody else can.

We've got people challenging me different times.

They say come on in Thursday, then they don't show up.

But if you want to talk about baptism as a requirement for salvation then I don't mind.

You know, cleaning up on the floor with you again.

OK, then next Thursday it is.

Let me say one thing with baptism that I think a lot of folks don't understand and read into the

scripture some things about trying to see a necessity and this may be where

he's going.

Whoever you got this from with the Didache it's trying to say that the Didache proves.

Catholicism is the only true church.

By the way, I should have said about the floor with the guy that's not a nice thing for me to say, so I retract that we'll talk baptism next week if you show up.

But how does a Didache support.

Catholicism?

I think what he was saying, and he dropped out I think what he was saying is that Didache does talk about the importance

of baptism, and we see this well that there seems to be this

connection between salvation and baptism and so many people make an argument as if you have to be

baptized to be saved and they don't understand the importance of baptism.

Baptism would be a command from God after we're saved, this is what we do now.

I'll just specify, Matt being a covenant theologian is going to have a little bit of a difference because he will see

that baptism is a covenant sign and therefore he would say that a child can get baptized

into the covenant family by the covenant, and so the child wouldn't be saved, but could be baptized.

So there's going to be a difference there, but Matt and I both believe in believer's baptism which would be after someone's saved

the first command that they should do is to obey the command of baptism get

baptized now, where so many people have a hard time or see it as a

mandatory thing for salvation is because of the close connection it has and in America

where people don't really have to sacrifice much to convert and be a Christian baptism is not that big of

a deal, in Muslim countries, you get baptized it's like a death sentence

you're showing that anyone can kill you, and so baptism is a big deal, and that's why they do it so

publicly and in many Muslim countries if you're not baptized, they assume you're not saved.

Why?

Because if you're not willing to display that you believe in Christ

to the point where you'll be baptized they question someone's salvation based on the

fruit of this one thing baptism, now for me the point that where

things got violent with my parents, I'm coming from a Jewish background, was when my

mother asked if I got baptized because the fact that I was

baptized was the thing that made a very clear distinction of who I was

standing with and that was where, well that's where it got violent, that's where

my mother started throwing her slaps but the point being is that

the reason baptism is so closely tied for salvation is not because it's necessary for

salvation, because we clearly see that with the thief on the cross, he wasn't baptized, we clearly see it as Matt said,

we're not saved by works so clearly, baptism doesn't save someone, especially since

when you look in scripture, someone saved and then baptized the order would be wrong if baptism

is necessary for salvation and it has to precede it, why is it listed in such a strong way?

Because the importance of it is, it is the fruit in a culture that is very

anti conversion like a Muslim country today a

Jewish country back in the day that the scriptures were written to be baptized, and remember this

was a Jewish ceremony of someone becoming Jewish, of a

conversion, okay they would have this the mitzvahs, the baths you'd

be converted in and so it's a clear sign of conversion that is

like saying, I'm going to give up my family, I'm going to give up my livelihood I'm going to give up my friends they all understood that,

so if someone wasn't willing to take a stand they would question salvation.

Now, after the writing of scripture, 2 -300's if you study church history

the Romans came in and started demanding people give up their bible if you didn't give up your bible

you were going to be imprisoned and then they searched your house anyway, so what a lot of people did was they gave up some of their

scriptures, but not all of them or they would deny that they had scriptures, and they didn't go to

prison, and then when Constantine ends up freeing everybody and saying that everyone's Christian now,

all these people who went to prison because they wouldn't give up the scriptures come out, and they looked at those people that

claimed to be Christian and wouldn't give or would give up part of the scriptures or

give up all the scriptures they called them compromisers, they questioned their salvation because they

wouldn't hold on to the scriptures and deny the burning of the scriptures.

Now, when we say that allowing someone to take your bible means you're not saved, because that was

put at the same watershed type argument as we saw with baptism in the first century

for the same reason there'd be many who would say the same with other issues today, if you're going

to take a position of allowing homosexuals as pastors or in the church and say that

they can continue in that practice and claim to be a Christian without

them seeing that as a sin, that's now a watershed issue for many today is

that necessary for salvation?

The church has always had things that they put as a watershed issue to look at it

and say this is something that is so important if you don't stand for this we're going to question your salvation

it's not what saves a person because it's after salvation, and so

next week I'm sure Matt will do a fine job, but I'll just say that this is the reason it is an

important thing, is because of the fact that it was a watershed issue to say are you willing to stand

for Christ?

And if you weren't the early church questioned your salvation and that's why we see

so much similarity, that's why the Didache is going to talk about baptism the importance of baptism, and by the way in the

Didache, it's going to talk about sprinkling, well not sprinkling pouring.

Okay, now Matt would bring Presbyterian believes in sprinkling Matt would believe that Jesus was sprinkled and

immersion.

Yeah, that's true.

You accept both, but you would accept pouring or sprinkling.

You need to have two syllables in there pouring or sprinkling that's it.

And the interesting thing, the Didache does mention that and it mentions that where there's not much water people can

pour.

Now some try to argue that that's proof and if he tries to go there

to say that proves the Roman Catholic way of or the Roman Catholic mode.

I don't think that would be a strong argument, because that's not from Scripture.

I mean, it's the practice of the early church is the best you could argue.

And that's what the Didache book, it was an instruction manual for the early church but

it's not Scripture, it's just what they were instructing other churches to do as their

practices.

Do you have the whole Didache up on car Matt, or do you just have an article on it.

I got it reproduced, I got it from some place, I forgot what it was.

Oh, cool I have it in Lagos, but yeah, Lagos is great.

You gotta help me figure out how to do some better stuff in Lagos.

I know, I gotta I do have to, I kinda it's been a whole year since my last Lagos training it's becoming a yearly

thing that I'm doing usually around March time frame I end up doing a Lagos

training, I do have two out there, but yeah, we'll get together for an hour and do that, let me do this and let folks know,

if you do want to get Lagos Striving Fraternity will give you with

our partnership with Lagos will give you five free books and a discount on Lagos.

Lagos is expensive, but I think Matt, you'd agree, Lagos is worth it.

Yeah if you do study like us, yeah it's worth it even if not, if you

just want to do the searches I mean, you don't have to get the full, the big package but if you go to

let's see, I think it's bit .ly I gotta check this out bit .ly

.com bit .ly .com slash S -F -E that stands for Striving Fraternity, S -F -E

Lagos so bit .ly bit .ly .com slash S -F -E

Lagos, L -O -G -O -S and if you go there you'll get a discount on purchasing Lagos

and you'll get five free books from Striving Fraternity, so I know Roel is here and had some questions

Matt, but we're kind of out of time we could, well we can go to the after show and

I can answer there the after show or next week and I'm going to give a check with

John to see if there's an after show he dropped out and he usually drops out to

start the show and he usually tells me what it is so

after show link question mark, so I'll get that here so folks

next week Matt will be here if you have questions my encouragement is to come early a lot of folks are coming in

and coming in late and then they want to know kind of where

you know, at the end when we're kind of leaving

they want to get in and so Matt I just dropped the link in for the after show, I'll drop that in chat in a minute, I'll

give you a minute to get over there.

I'll go over there now you head over and folks that are here can head over

see you guys.