Calvinism Debated | Apologetics Live 0010 | Matt Slick HD 720p

This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport, part of the

Christian Podcast Community. All right, we are live.

This is Apologetics Live. We are here with our resident apologist, Matt Slick from CARM .org, a great place to go for all of your apologetics questions.

We also are going to have with us Don Johnson from the 80s. He was in a lot of the movies.

Oh, wait, no, no, sorry. This is John. John Johnson, sorry. But it was close. Close enough. But he is a

Pelagian. Matt is a Calvinist. And we are going to start off, before we do open

Q &A, we're going to start off with... John wanted to discuss, in a friendly debate, not a formal debate, but a friendly discussion debate type, the topics of total depravity and original sin.

After that, if you guys think John didn't do a good enough job defending your views, those of you who are

Pelagian or semi -Pelagian, you can come in and take your shots with Matt and see how well you do.

So, John, you're going to have to make sure that you do yourself justice right here. But for folks who do follow us or used to follow the old show

Matt and I did, they'll know John. He was actually the guy that was driving down the road. Matt, I don't know if you remember this, but John was the guy that was driving down the road.

You told him to put his hand in front of his face and on camera, he actually slapped himself.

Oh, yeah, I remember that. That's good. That had to be one of the funniest things. You're like, put your hand right in front of your face.

He did it. So, John's a very good sport with that. But we want to first, before we get to that, just let folks know, we want to give you some plugs for you to check out karm .org

for different apologetic things you're going to see out there. That's the ministry that Matt works for and is the founder of.

And I'm the founder and work for Striving for Eternity. You can go to strivingforeturning .org and check that out.

We'll give you some folks to know that we're hoping to open the

Christian podcast community up to the public, to podcasters who want to be on that, hopefully in January, late

January. We're going to be doing a controlled introduction. And so we want to do it slow and make sure we have all the kinks worked out.

But if you're a podcaster and you want to be part of that, you can contact me at strivingforeturning .org.

If you're a listener to podcasts, well, just go to Christian podcast community on whatever podcast app you have.

You'll get this show and all the others if you want them. So, Matt, can you bring us up to speed with how you and John came about with this discussion?

Because I know you're the one that posted it. Something about a Facebook page or something. It's been so long ago, a few days ago, and I do so many things that I can't remember all the particulars.

But it was like, oh yeah, let's talk. And here we are. And you're always up to a challenge.

So well, lately, not so much the way things have been, but I am trying to set up a debate with a

Muslim now, but we'll see. That would be a fun one.

All right. So, I don't, because this is going to be an informal and we didn't actually say who wants to go first or, you know, do we want to do one of the topics at a time or do we want to...

Yeah. One topic at a time. Go ahead. Okay. So, John, why don't you start us off? Some folks, why don't you at least introduce yourself?

I don't think everyone might remember you from the old days when we were on the other show. Yeah. No worries.

Yeah. My name is John Johnson. I'm also go by the Irenic Pelagian. Some people know me by that name.

I still hang out with most of these Council of Google Plus guys on occasion, like I see

John here. But yeah, I'm just a Christian. I've gone through different phases of, you know, my theology and trying to understand it.

And, you know, I went through a Calvinistic phase early on and I just I came to understand that it's

I guess, you know, all I would say is I think that Calvinism seems to me to be a system of proof text.

So whenever I find someone making an assertion about Calvinism and then they'll point to a text, it never seems to actually say what the

Calvinist wants it to say. Or at least there's, you know, other ways to see it that are, you know, do less damage to the name of God, you know.

So my issue with Calvinism is I believe it impugns the character of God. So I guess if Matt would want to, you know,

I believe that total depravity is just a non -biblical doctrine.

You know, I believe men are born essentially as Adam and Eve were created before they fell.

They're born, they're on the path to, you know, they're born on the path. And then, you know, when they reach a certain age, then, you know, they'll sin and they'll leave the path.

So that's kind of how I see our anthropology, you know. I look at Jesus, you know, and I see that he was a human being made like us.

And so that's where I kind of start with my anthropology. You know, I don't think Jesus had a sin nature, the

Bible I don't think ever talks about a sin nature. I don't believe sin, the Bible ever indicates that sin has the power to change our nature.

So I believe we have human natures and our natures are subject to sin and we can become slaves to sin, and we do.

So I don't know, those are some of the issues I have with Calvinism. I mean, if you would want to go to a text,

I would like to look at one text at a time. You know, I'm kind of familiar,

I think, with, you know, any text you'll go to, so. Well, I would just ask you to demonstrate from the text the idea that people are born sinless as Adam and Eve were before they fell.

That's a statement you made, so show me some scripture. Okay, so we see in Romans 9,

Jacob and Esau, when they're in the womb, they have not done anything good or evil. That's one place we could look at.

What does it say there that they're born in the same state as Adam and Eve were before the fall?

Where does it say that in the text? Because you just said, the Calvinists give you a proof text, but it doesn't say what you say.

And then you just now, the first thing you did was exactly what you accused Calvinists of doing. So show me where Romans 9, 9 -13, where it says that Jacob, you know, didn't do anything good or bad.

Show me where it says in the text that they have a sinless nature. Well, it seems to me, you know,

I just have, you know, my point is they have a human nature. If you want to suggest they have a sinful nature, some kind of sin nature, that'd be up to you to show.

You know, wait a minute. Wait a minute. If the Bible doesn't teach it, it's pretty hard to know where that is. Are you a sinner?

Have you sinned? Yeah. Do you have a human nature? I do. Then you're a human that has, you've sinned.

So there you go. You just reputed your own self. No. Okay. So, all right.

So let me ask you a question, Matt. So Adam and Eve, when they were created, before they sinned, would you say they were, they had not done anything good or evil?

That's correct. Well, I don't know about good or evil because that's a more technically difficult question to answer than just saying good or evil because what is good, what is evil.

But Romans 9 talks about some stuff in the context of after the fall of Adam and Eve. Can you hear me okay?

My computer's... I can hear you well. So, you know, to say that, well, they hadn't done anything good or evil was to say that they weren't doing anything good in their worship and adoration of God in the garden that they're walking with Him.

So that wouldn't make sense, really. Okay. So, like I said, you asked for some verses. I just, you know, that was one

I want to just, you know, we could point to that. But that verse doesn't say that people are born with a nature that's the same as Adam and Eve before they sinned.

It doesn't say that in Romans 9. Right. But it does say they haven't done anything good or evil and that the point

Paul is making is that God made this choice when the kids were innocent, you know, before they had done anything good or evil.

Or to say they were innocent. Okay. I'm implying that. So, all right, another...

Wait a minute. You're the one who set the stage and said that the verses you quote by the Calvinist quote, it doesn't say that.

You keep doing the exact same thing that you accuse Calvinists of doing. Okay. See, Matt, you're the...

I opened this up telling you I had objections to your view.

Okay. And I told you why. Okay. So, you asked me why I think, you know, kids are born...

You know, there's a lot of reasons. You know, I mentioned first, you know, that Jesus was born.

You know, we have the same nature that Jesus had when he was born. He's divine. You're saying we have a divine nature?

We do have a divine nature. I mean, as Luke describes it in Acts 17. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

We have a divine nature. So, we're gods? No, but we have the divine nature. We share...

How do we have a divine nature if we're not gods? Because we're children of God. We share the divine nature.

You carry the divine nature. Not that we... So, what do you mean by we have a divine nature?

Well, I mean, like in Acts 17, Paul uses the fact that children, you know, we have the divine nature to show that God isn't like wood and stone and, you know, things like that.

What verse is that? Acts 17. Let me see. Yeah, it's going to be after verse, you know, 22.

It's in this section, 22 and following. Yes.

In verse 29, it says, therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not try to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by the art of man's devising.

Truly, these times, you know, so what he's going to go on to say is by looking at God's children, you can see that he's got a divine nature, not a...

Are we born with his divine nature? Yeah, well, we must be because this is talking about all men, all people.

So people, when they're born, are divine. Well, I'm saying that we share the divine nature.

What does it mean to share the divine nature? You're saying that all people, when they're born, share the divine nature. What does that mean?

Share what divine nature? God's divine nature? Well, I can't think of any other divine nature than God's nature.

Okay, so then all people who are conceived and born are sharing the divine nature. What does it mean to share the divine nature, then?

I'm just not sure what you mean by that. Yeah, you know,

I don't have all the answers, Matt, but it sounds like... If you don't know what that means, then you shouldn't be saying it.

Well, the divine nature seems to be indicating that human beings, you know, in their created person, share the divine nature.

I would assume it has something to do with our being God imagers. But, you know, that's...

I'm just saying, Paul makes the argument, he says that we have the divine nature.

Now, so you'd have to ask Paul, what does he mean by that? Where does it say we have a divine nature?

It doesn't say that in Acts 17, 29. Being then the children of God, we ought to not think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone.

Where does it say we have a divine nature? Yeah, okay, so just let me read the whole...

Because it's the argument he makes. So, verse 24. God, who made the world and everything in it, since he is

Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is he worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, since he gives to all life, breath, and all things.

And he has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth, and has determined their pre -appointed times, and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the

Lord, in the hope that they might grope for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

For in him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring.

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.

So, since we are the offspring of God, Paul says, we ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver.

He's making the argument God's nature is like our nature. This is what his argument is.

God's infinite divine nature is like our fallen nature? I'm just telling you the argument

Paul is making, Matt. He's proving that God is not like these idols made of wood and stone and such, because you can see we're

God's children. He just made that point in the argument, just as your own poets have said, we are God's offspring.

And he affirms that, so we are his children. So therefore, he says, based on the fact that we are

God's children, we know that God isn't like wood and stone. Do you see the argument?

Yeah, in other words, the divine nature is different than gold and silver and stone.

So where does it say that we're born with a divine nature? No, it says that we know that God has a divine nature because we can see the children of God.

So where does it say that children are born with a divine nature in them? Matt, it's built into the argument.

If you don't see it, you don't see it. That's fine. We can move on. Well, wait a minute. I'm just going off what you said, the tone.

You said that the problem with Calvinists is they take these verses, they quote things, proof texting, but they don't say what the

Calvinists say they say. And here, every single time you quote a verse, it's the same thing.

No, I just explained that. It's in the argument. I laid it out. The divine nature is, that's how you know

God is divine, by looking at his children. Do you get it? So if I can look at your children,

I would know something about you by looking at your children, Matt. No, no, no, no, no. Something about God, you said, divine nature, then you switch it to me.

So you're saying that if I look at my children, then you'd know about God's divinity by looking at my kids? Yeah, see verse 28,

For in him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring.

Right? He's quoting a pagan philosopher. He's trying to witness to the unbelievers and trying to get a common bond with them.

And they believed in bowing before different gods as wood, stone, and things like that.

And he says, no, the divine nature is not like that. It doesn't say that the divine nature is in us when we're born.

No, how is it Paul is proving that God isn't like wood and stone?

By saying the divine nature, we ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold, silver, and stone.

Why shouldn't we think that? He made an argument that shows why we shouldn't think that.

Because God is not like that. He's just stating the fact. No, it's because of the offspring, his children.

You can look at the children of God that are spread all over the world. He's talking to the unbelievers and using a pagan poet in order to connect with them.

So being the children of God, all of us. Now, biblically, the children of God, you go to John 112, as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be called the children of God.

So we have Romans 8, we have the issue of adoption. What he's doing here is something theologically different. He's doing evangelism.

He's simply trying to connect with them and show a commonality. What if your own poet said this?

Well, being then, from what you're a poet, says the children of God, we ought not think that the divine nature is like gold, silver, or stone.

An image formed by the heart of man. What he's saying is, hey, look, we should know this. And it's that the divine nature is not like the simple physical things.

No, it's not as simple as that, man. You're reading way too much into it. You're ignoring the fact that, look, at verse 26,

And he has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.

Right? So this isn't, this is everyone. This isn't distinguishing God's creation.

Are you saying everyone's a child of God? Now, hold on. And he says, And has determined their pre -appointed times and the boundaries of their dwelling.

So all across the globe, he's determined where people will live, when they will live. Good Calvinism, good.

He's done that so that, verse 27, So that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grow for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Now, that's all -inclusive. God is not far from each of us. That's okay. Now, we're talking about the divine nature in children that you're born with.

That's what we're talking about. Right now, we're just talking about the children. You know, we're talking about mankind.

The verse doesn't say what you say it says. So maybe you want to try another verse. No, no. I'm just saying, so far, we just have all of mankind in view.

So now, at verse 28, Paul continues. He says, For in him, in God, we live and move and have our being.

And this, and he says, As also your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring, his children.

So Paul, now, since he's established that we are God's offspring, we are

God's children. Okay, now he says, So since that's true, therefore, since we are the offspring of God, see,

Paul affirms that we are God's children. We ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold and silver.

It's obvious. Because you can see a human being, and they possess the divine nature, we know that God is not like wood and stone.

God has the divine nature. We can see it when we look at his children. That's what his argument is.

So, you're saying, then, that we are divine by nature?

I'm agreeing with Paul. Are you saying we're divine by nature? Apparently, the human nature is...

Is divine. Sounds like it to me, yeah. Okay, so now you're saying that everybody's a little

God. We're all divine, like God. I'm agreeing with Paul. I'm not saying...

I'm pointing out what Paul said. Are you saying, then, that we're all little gods, because we're divine in our nature?

We're born that way? No, I'm saying that the human nature, designed by God...

Is divine. ...has some divinity to it. Okay, so that means we're God. Divinity is the quality of being

God. That's what it means, biblically. So you're saying we are God? No.

No? I don't believe that's what divinity... Really? What does divinity mean?

I'm saying, if God... Just the fact that God shares His divinity with us, if that's what

He does... What does it mean to share His divinity? Look, you use these terms, but you don't explain what they mean. What does it mean to share?

That makes someone else a little bit divine? Or does it mean just to indwell us, and there's a separation between His nature and our nature?

No, we... Paul says we have the divine nature. Okay, so you're saying that we are divine by nature, then?

I'm saying Paul says that we have the divine nature. Okay, what does it mean to have? Does it mean that we have it as in part of our nature?

Or does it mean have as in God indwells us, as we have it in that sense? There are different senses. I'm trying to get clarification.

So which is it for you? It seems to me that Paul has the sense of, you know, it's part of our ontology, or, you know, part of our nature.

So now you're saying we are divine? Okay, so ontologically you're saying we are divine. So that means that we're like God, because we're divine.

So that's Mormonism. No, it means that we share the divinity of God somehow.

You're teaching Mormonism. We're little gods in embryo, and we reach our full potential of Godhood.

That's what Mormonism teaches, that we have a divine nature, because the nature of God and nature of man are basically one and the same, except that he just progressed further than we have.

So you're just saying the same basic kind of a thing. You're just heaping heresy upon heresy.

So now you're saying that we're divine by our very nature when we're born. So that makes us little gods.

No, I'm just pointing out that Paul argues that we have the divine nature. So I'm not going to argue with Paul.

No, you're begging the question. You're assuming that's what he's saying. I'm taking what you're saying, and I'm working with what you're saying. So is

God divine? God is divine, yes. Okay, so if I'm divine, am

I God? No. Then how can I be divine if I'm not God?

Because you're a creature that God made. Because you're a creature that God made. Oh, so I'm a divine creature?

It sounds like, because we're children of God, we're... Can God sin? Do you think children are related to their fathers?

Yes. Can God sin? Can God sin? I don't believe so.

You don't believe so, wow. Okay, well, I'll answer that. No. So since I am a sinner, and I still struggle with sin, and I'm divine, according to you, so I have a divine nature, and yet I'm also sinning, yet the divine nature can't sin.

So how does that work? It works because God is the father of all humanity, and humanity are his children.

So because they're related to God, I think that's what Paul has in mind. So how can my divine nature that I have, and I'm divine by nature, how can

I also sin? Since God, who has a divine nature, cannot sin. And I have his divine nature, so how can

I sin? Well, obviously, we have the ability to sin, Matt. Wait a minute.

But God cannot sin. And you said, I have God's nature. So how am I able to sin with God's nature, but God with his nature can't?

Apparently, we can possess the divine nature and still sin, if we choose to.

Okay. So I can sin, I have a divine nature, and God can't sin. He has a divine nature.

Well, I have a human nature. God doesn't share my human nature. Is a human nature the same thing as a divine nature?

I don't... You know, some of these questions I'm not going to have the answers to, Matt. I think God, as we see

God, you know, God is spirit like Jesus. Ask me the question. Is the human nature the same as the divine nature?

Go ahead and ask me the question. Is human nature the same as divine nature?

No. Is that what you said? No, the answer is no. God possesses the divine nature, and Him dwells all the fullness of deity and bodily form as Jesus, the divine nature, the

Godhead. He's before me, the creature. So I don't share His nature because part of the divine nature is immutability, is eternality, is aseity.

I don't possess those things. I don't have the divine nature in the sense of its myontos, my nature in essence.

So if God cannot sin, and He cannot sin with the divine nature, and you say that I am divine, well, then

I can't sin. But now you're saying, no, you have a divine nature that's the same as God, but you can sin, but God, who has a divine nature, can't sin.

You're not making any sense. Well, you're just not understanding me,

Matt. See, Adam was the son of God. You realize that?

Yeah, he was, in one sense, a son of God, yeah. Right? So God was his father, right?

In a sense, being a creator, yeah. You understand, though, don't you, that children share the attributes of their father?

Yeah, my children share the attributes of their father and their mother, biologically, genetics.

Right, so this is what Paul is saying back in Acts 17. Once he shows that all these people are around, and these are

God's children, and because we're God's children, we shouldn't think that the divine nature is like wood and stone.

Yeah, so the divine nature is not wood and stone, we know that, but I asked you if God could sin.

You said you don't believe so. I'd help you out. No, he cannot. And then you say, I have a divine nature, but I can sin.

You haven't been able to explain that disparity. Because you say, if I have a fallen nature, well, welcome to Calvinism.

But if you're saying that we don't have a fallen nature, we have a divine nature, that's a problem. But I'm a sinner, and you're a sinner.

So you have fallenness. I don't believe in fallen natures. I believe we have a human nature that can sin or do whatever humans are capable of.

Well, I believe we're, by nature, children of damnation, children of wrath. That's what our nature is. Only sons of disobedience are children of wrath, by nature.

Really? And so, only them. Okay. So when we're born, we're born completely innocent, which you have no verses for.

You're like Adam and Eve before they fell, which you have no verses for. Then you say we have a divine nature, which you go to the text, but it doesn't support that.

And then you say we're divine in our nature, yet we can sin. When I asked you if God can sin, you said you didn't think so, which is a problem in itself.

You should have the emphatic, no, he cannot. And it's problematic there. Because you're so man -centered in your theology, you're affecting the very nature of God.

Your humanistic philosophy is overpowering you. You see, this is a sign of, believe it or not, total depravity.

Well, I think you ignore Jesus and his role and whether he was actually tempted to sin or not.

So how do I ignore Jesus' role? Yeah, because I think

Jesus chose, as a human being, I believe Jesus chose not to sin. I don't believe he didn't sin because he couldn't sin.

Does Jesus have two natures? Did he have two natures?

Does he have two natures, divine and human? Does he have two? I don't know. Do you read the

Bible? Do you believe the Bible is true? I do. John 1, verse 14, In the beginning was the

Word, the Word was with God. The Word was God. Verse 14, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, so the divine,

Logos, God, became flesh. Colossians 2, 9, For in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form.

That's divine and human. That's two natures. Except that I read that in Philippians, Jesus said he didn't, you know, count his equality with God something to be held on to, and he laid it aside and became a man.

He lowered himself. Oh, so Jesus on earth was not God? So Jesus was not

God on earth? I believe of course his identity as God remains the same.

Was Jesus God? Did Jesus have a divine nature? Was he actually God incarnate on earth? He had a human nature,

I know that much. Did Jesus have a divine nature? Was he God incarnate? If you think he did,

Matt, show me where you think Jesus had a divine nature. John 1, 1, verse 14, Colossians 2, 9,

Philippians 2, 5 -8. What about the fact that Jesus didn't count his equality with God something to be held on to, and he set aside those things?

He did not consider it robbery to be made in the form of a servant. He did not consider equality something to be robbed or taken.

In other words, it was already his. Okay, let me just interrupt real quick for one thing.

If you guys could try not to talk over each other. So, if you ask a question, give him a chance to answer, and vice versa.

Thanks. So you're not even sure if Jesus was God in flesh when he's on the earth?

No, I know he was God, and he became a human being. Did Jesus possess two natures while walking on the earth,

God and man? I don't read any scriptures that tell me that. Okay, what do you believe?

Did he have two natures when he walked on earth? Yes or no? I believe he was a human being that whose identity is

God. Okay, did he have two natures? Do you believe he did have two natures or did not have two natures, both divine and human, or not both divine and human?

Well, if I'm stuck with only one, where do you see,

Matt, that Jesus at all times possessed two natures while he was a man?

Just for clarification for those with his question, Jesus at all times, we're not talking about the pre -incarnate Christ because Jesus himself came into existence when he was conceived and born.

That's when he adopted the human nature and the Word became flesh in that sense. From that point on, from eternity on, he will always possess two natures.

Now that's the Orthodox doctrines called the Hypostatic Union, just for clarification. So when you say that Jesus always possessed this, it's not the case.

2 ,000 years ago, Jesus became a man. So technically to say he always possessed both natures is technically correct if we understand it to mean at the time of his inception that Jesus was two persons.

That's what that means. That's Biblical Orthodox theology. Now Jesus says, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins,

John 8 .24. John 8 .58, he says, before Abraham was, I am. They wanted to pick up stone to kill him.

John 10 .30 -34, to pick up stones again to kill him. He said, many good works from the

Father I've shown you, for which of these are you stoning me? And they said, for good work we don't stone you, but you being a man, make yourself out to be

God. So the Pharisees understood he was claiming to be God. Jesus claimed to be God.

He was claiming it. They understood exactly what he was saying. So you either believe Jesus or you believe the Pharisees. You either affirm that Jesus is

God in flesh, two natures, or you deny that he's God in flesh with two natures as the Pharisees.

No, I don't have to. I can affirm that Jesus is God and that he has a human nature.

Does he have two natures? The person have two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. I don't read it.

It seems to me Jesus set his divinity aside, so I'd have to say that... So if he set it aside...

I believe in the divinity of the miracle. Hold on guys. If he set his divinity aside, then he was no longer

God. No. Why do you say that? Because he would set it aside.

So he's not divine. It's not there. It's not his. Set it aside someplace else.

Well, he set it aside didn't mean he could pick it up again. Just because he sets it aside doesn't mean he loses his identity of who he is.

Like, should God choose not to exercise his power at a certain time doesn't change the fact that he's

God. You know what I mean? Alright, so you don't understand the hypothetic?

Do you even know what the Trinity is? Yeah, I believe in the Trinity. What is it?

I believe that God is one God in three persons.

Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same body he died in? I believe so. Is he a man right now?

Is he a man? I suppose so. Is he God right now?

Well, I have questions about that. I would suggest you go to talks about him being at the right hand of God that Jesus you know

I'm not sure of I could see more of a hypostatic union at the time of the ascension than I can at the time of the incarnation if that makes sense.

And that would mean his personhood changed in that interim. And that would be adoptionism, a form of that.

And that's a problem. I would suggest you go to QARM and read up on the nature of Christ, the hypostatic union, communicatio idiomatum, and read these things because you are in serious error.

You're really confused. We talked about total depravity. So you've not been able to demonstrate your position of Pelagianism or no total depravity yet.

Well, my charge is, Matt, that it's your verses that you try to prove total depravity that don't prove it.

So you asked me some questions. I went to some texts. I didn't go through all the texts that we could go over.

Ask me a question. Right. Well, I go to Acts 17, and you don't even see the argument there.

You don't admit that it's the reason that we are like God.

And Paul says that's the divine nature. That's how we know, by looking at his children, that God has the divine nature.

You can't see that somehow we share the divine nature. You have a problem with that. I didn't say that I deny that we somehow share the divine nature.

But I'm just saying that your interpretation of the text is not proper. Do you want to ask me a question, though?

Well, I would like to know why you think men are born in the, you know, in the condition you think they are born in.

Because Adam represented us and when he fell, we fell. Okay, so from,

I suppose you're taking that from Romans 5 12? Is that where you get that?

Well, sin entered the world through Adam, and he represented us. In Adam all die. 1 Corinthians 15 22.

Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men. Romans 5 18. So yeah, that's what

I believe right there. The Bible says there's none righteous, not even one. There's none who understands, none who seeks for God.

All have turned aside. There's none who does good. See, people act based on what they are. And so what they are is sinful.

Right, I agree that we act like what we are, but what you what you're supposing is that we were born this way.

You just quoted a verse that shows that we were not born that way. Romans 3 10 -12 is on my side, because there it shows that all and you think that's everyone all have turned aside,

Matt. Where did they turn aside from? He's quoting the

Old Testament, of course, and he's saying there's none righteous, not even one. Would you say that we're born righteous?

I don't think we were born righteous, no. Were we born sinful? No. Were we born neutral?

It seems like it, yeah. I think God, you know, God creates us in the womb, just like Psalm 139 says.

We have to assume that when God makes us that's something that's good. It doesn't have a sin nature.

That wouldn't be good. Do you know what federal headship is? What? It's the doctrine that through Adam that Adam was actually the representative of humanity and that when

Adam sinned, God held all his progeny you know, we basically all sinned when he sinned.

And so he holds all his progeny guilty for that sin. Pretty much.

There's different variations on this called original sin but it's the teaching that the male represents its descendants.

That's what it basically is. Now it says, in Adam all die. Do you know what the phrase in Adam means?

I believe it means he's talking about, that would be those that identify as human beings in his line.

Those that identify as human beings? So if someone doesn't identify as a human but identifies as a roach would that not be represented by Christ?

No, I'm saying you know, I would understand that as all human beings that come from Adam.

Okay, so good. So Adam was our first ancient father and all descendants from him.

Right? Right. It says in him. In him is a term of federal headship. Just as it says in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15 22. So federal headship in Adam. So who are the ones who are in Adam?

All human beings I think are in Adam. So all human beings die. Yes. Okay, do babies die?

Yes. So sin results in death. Well, death

Wait till sin is death. Romans 6 23. Hold on one second. John, is there any way you can get headphones on?

We're getting an echo from when Matt speaks. Yeah. I know he's got some headphones on.

Sorry to interrupt Matt but it's making it kind of hard to listen.

Well I'll tell you what, while he's doing that now would be a good time we could give a word out to our sponsor.

We'll do that. Be a good time for that. This show is Matt Slick Live, the radio show that is sponsored by MyPillow.

And MyPillow is a pillow that both Matt and I use regularly because we love them.

So it's very easy to have them as a sponsor. And Mike Liddell Matt is a professing believer and has donated

I think like a million dollars to a pro -life movie. He's been coming under some heat for that. I actually in January it looks like I'll have him on the

Rap Report podcast to discuss that. Good for him. Yeah.

It's good to have men that are willing to stand on convictions. MyPillow is an excellent pillow.

It doesn't matter how late how much you sleep on it, it stays the same firmness.

It is great. And you know, gets dirty just throw it in the wash throw it in the dryer and it's like back to normal, back to new.

It's a great pillow. Matt and I both travel with ours. If you'd like to get your MyPillow you can call 1 -800 944 5396

That's 1 -800 944 5396 to get yourself a

MyPillow. Back to the debate. John? Yeah, I'm still

I'm going to have to try a different pair. Sorry. So he's about as good with his technology as he is with his theology?

Oh. You guys are the ones that have the problem, not me. That's what

I'm saying. And while you do that, there's a guy on YouTube called

JC JC Superstar. I'm assuming stands for Jesus Christ Superstar.

Love to get him in here. If he would like to come in and prove his non -belief in God, that would be wonderful.

Also Edison, I know you're watching I don't know if you can see the chat. If you can see chat, just put a note in the chat.

I've got something I've got to share with you about the conference out in the Philippines. Are you set up now,

John? I think so. Can you hear me okay? Because I can hear you. Good.

And is that taking care of your echo problem? That's good. Yep, that takes care of it.

Thanks. Okay. I kind of forgot where we were. Well, let's just pick up with you were asking questions.

You were talking about death and babies. Federal headship. Federal headship, yeah.

Yeah, so babies die, right? Well, all human beings are mortal.

They were created mortal. The only reason you die is because of sins, which is death. If someone's sinless, there's nothing that holds them.

Because death is what results. The day that you do the fruit, you'll die. And that's the rebellion against God in Genesis 2 .17.

Death and sin. If there is no sin, why do they die? Well, what happened when Adam died was that he was removed from the garden and a cherub was placed there to guard the way to the tree of life so they couldn't eat and live forever.

So that's why people die. Like Adam, he was removed from the garden. That was his sentence.

He, in effect, removed all human beings from the garden because he got removed. So the reason people die as far as a baby dies who hasn't committed any sin, they might die just because they're mortal.

The wages of sin is death, but Adam didn't die until 930 years later.

If Adam had never sinned, would he have died? I think he would have remained alive in the garden because he would have access to the tree of life.

Okay. So as long as he didn't sin, he could stay alive. Yeah. Staying alive was a result of him having access to the tree of life.

So you mean he stayed alive not by being sinless, but by eating a certain fruit?

I believe so because God created him out of the dust. He created him out of the dust and that shows his mortality.

So as long as he kept eating of the tree of life, he'd stay alive? I believe so, yeah. Just like in Revelation, we see the tree of life again.

It produces fruit each month. That probably was the design in the garden. They would have to keep eating of the fruit in order to have life.

Okay. So that means they would have... You're saying they had to eat of the fruit of the tree to stay alive, but they would have been sinless and if they hadn't eaten of the fruit, they ate other vegetables, then they would have died even though they had never sinned.

No, as long as they ate from the tree of life, they would have died. What if they didn't eat from that tree and they were eating from other fruits and vegetables in the garden, and yet they never sinned, they would have died.

Yeah, I think so. So when it says the wages of sin is death, what does that mean then?

What's that death? Well, it's the... The only reason we think of death in ways other than one way is because we know about the resurrection.

But death... I see death as the eschatological death. Death that you won't come back from.

So babies die because they don't eat of the fruit of the tree of life.

Well, we don't have access to that tree, so yeah, babies are mortal and they can die even though they don't sin.

So babies die, but they have not sinned, and yet the wages of sin is death, so they've not sinned, but yet they're dead.

They die. Yeah, so we could see... Do you have any verses to show me that this mortality thing will live...

They'll die in mortality and their sinlessness? Do you have anything to back this up scripturally? I don't know.

What do you... I'm not sure what you want me to back up. Your idea with scripture. Yeah, I just...

I mean, this is all based on scripture. We see that Adam was kicked out of the garden, and that is why...

That, I believe, is exactly what Paul had in mind in Romans 5 when he was talking about Adam and what he did.

We can see a little of that in Romans 5 .12 because he doesn't say that...

I mean, he says that death spread to all men because all sinned. He didn't say all sinned in Adam.

Does that include babies? Well, it only includes babies after they reach the age of accountability.

So then the all who sinned doesn't include babies until a certain age. So it doesn't mean all. Well, in my view, sure.

I don't believe that babies sinned. Why would a baby die? I mean, if he's mortal, he's going to live for a long, long, long time.

Why does he die in infancy? You know, there's abortion.

People kill babies. I mean, they die because they're mortal. That's why. They're diable.

They can die. But what about sudden death, SIDS, you know,

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome? They just die. Nothing apparently wrong with them. They just die. It happens.

But they didn't sin, according to you, so why? Why'd they die? Right, because they're mortal.

They die because they're mortal. But what's the reason? Because if they don't sin, they're going to continue to live for a long period of time.

So it must have happened that they sinned. Yeah. Or that they die. Yeah, the reason they die is because we were kicked out of the garden.

Okay. You want to ask me another question? Yeah, I don't know.

I just... Okay, so, Federal Headship, I mean, I see that principle in the

Scripture, but what I don't see is all that certain

Calvinists want to attach to that doctrine. That's one issue I have, but just to touch back on Federal Headship.

Federal Headship is a teaching that the male represents a descendant. Did Jesus represent us? Yeah. I believe he represented all humanity on the cross.

He represented everybody. So did he bear everybody's sin? Yes. So he canceled the sin debt for everybody who ever lived?

In a legal sense. Okay, so we're judged for damnation on a legal sense based on sin.

So why do people go to hell if he canceled their sin and got rid of it for everybody? Why'd they go to hell?

Well, because life is conditioned on faith in Christ.

Unless you believe, you won't live forever. Denying God and not having faith in Christ is a sin.

He paid for all the sin, so why do they go to hell if there's no sin to be held against them? Right.

Jesus took care of the sin in the legal sense, so unbelief, the legal aspect of unbelief is taken care of.

Jesus took care of that. So unbelief, though, not only is it a sin, it also keeps you from being joined to Christ, which is the necessary aspect that has to be completed before we can live.

So you can have all your sins paid for, including unbelief, in the legal sense, paid for on the cross.

But once Jesus returns and you don't have a body, you don't get the body that's fit for the kingdom, you know, from then on, you're just going to be burned up, and you won't, you'll die.

So you're saying Jesus actually removed the legal sin debt of everybody, and yet God still sends them to hell for their sin debt that doesn't exist.

No, God doesn't send them to hell. It's a consequence, it's certainly a consequence of not being joined to Christ when he comes.

So God doesn't actively put them in hell, they just kind of what, just kind of levitate on their own, and just kind of move in there, because that's a consequence of not believing?

Just like a spiritual force? No, like, if you go to 2 Thessalonians 2, chapter 1, 2

Peter chapter 3, you'll see that what happens is, the picture we have is

Jesus shows up, and his very presence the believers, you know, they get new bodies, the believers are raised, you know, everyone's raised, the believers get new bodies, but all the unbelievers, they get burned up by God's very presence, like the man of sin gets destroyed by the brightness of Jesus coming, you know, the epiphany of his prayer, see it.

So they're annihilated. They're burned up. They're annihilated. You believe in annihilationism?

I believe they're burned up. Do you believe in annihilationism, that they stop existing?

Is that what you mean by burned up? Oh, I just said what I mean,

Matt. I don't know what you mean. That's for clarification. They're burned up. Annihilationists say they're burned up.

What they mean by it is a person ceases to have any existence. Is that what you're saying? Well, I would go to Isaiah 66, and you can see, you know, what, you know, there's another picture of it.

You know, that, you know, the wicked are like, you know, corpses, you know, just going to be eaten by worms or they're ashes under our feet.

So, I don't know. Do ashes exist? I mean, are, you know, if someone's annihilated, will there still be a dead body there?

If they're annihilated, then they don't have existence. I mean, that's what annihilation means. And unless you want, you know,

Right, so I'm not an annihilationist. I'm not an annihilationist. Oh, so they're burned up, but they continue to live afterwards?

No, they're burned up. And then there's a new heaven and a new earth, and where only righteousness dwells, and we go on into the eternal kingdom.

Do the wicked have any existence at all anyplace? Only a dead existence.

Only a dead existence. Do they have any conscious existence? No, they're dead.

So they don't have any consciousness, there's no real existence. Well, they're thrown into the lake of fire.

And, you know, we see that Hades is thrown in there, death is thrown in there, we know that death is no more.

So I guess, you know, it wouldn't be unbiblical to suggest that people that are thrown into the lake of fire are no more after that fact.

But you're an annihilationist, okay. Alright. Wow, okay.

So you've not demonstrated your position. Reverse is out of context. I've talked to you about federal headship representation.

The babies die, and you say that they die because they're mortal, but that doesn't mean anything. Mortality isn't the cause of their death.

Mortality means they can die. The cause of their death is something else. And I'm trying to ask you, what's the cause of the death of a mortal child?

And, you know, you said maybe abortion. That would be an example. And I gave you SIDS, just there's no apparent reason.

And the way to sin is death, Romans 6, 23. And they haven't died, or haven't sinned, according to you.

They don't sin until the age of accountability, which we haven't even asked you, that's biblical. So, but yet you say

Calvinism is whacked, and then we went into limited atonement a little bit. You said everybody's sins are taken care of and canceled, and yet people still go to hell for sin that doesn't even exist for them anymore.

Illegal! It's illegal debt that doesn't exist. That's exactly correct. He canceled the sin debt,

I believe only for the elect, limited atonement. But if you're going to say he canceled the sin debt, the legal debt, for everybody who ever lived,

God can't judge them for damnation because there is no sin debt against them at all. It's gone.

And that would accuse God of unrighteousness by sending them to hell for sin that doesn't even exist on them. Well, actually

God judged the sin at the cross. Right? So He did judge the sin. We're talking about people going to heaven and hell, not sin going to heaven or hell.

No, but God judged sin. God does not not judge sin. He judged it all at Calvary.

You're saying that people whose sin debt is canceled, it's removed, doesn't exist anymore, legally paid for, that God still judges them for sin.

Sin is breaking the law. Sin is breaking the law of God, 1 John 4, 3. And Jesus said,

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Forgive us our sins. Another place, forgive us our debts. You go to Romans 6, 12 and Luke 11 forward to see the relationship where Jesus equated sin with debt.

So you're saying Jesus actually canceled the sin debt for everybody, and yet people still go to hell, which means

God the Father, God is judging them for sin they don't have and sending them to hell for sin they don't have.

There's an inconsistency on your part. It's not judging them. They died consequentially.

They died consequentially. They experienced the wrath of God as a consequence of not having been joined to Christ and not getting the bodies that they need.

It doesn't matter. There's sin debt. God can't judge them for damnation. There's sin debt that doesn't exist.

Well, as a consequence of...the only people that are going to live, according to the Bible, are people that are joined to Christ through faith.

And God grants that they believe. I'm sorry? God grants that they believe,

Leviticus 1, 29. Another problem... Hold on, hold on, hold on. He granted the

Gentiles that they could believe, but Paul is talking about not only did he grant that you could believe, but he's also granted you to suffer for his sake.

I mean, that's the point of the verse. It's not like God has granted individuals a gift of faith.

That's not what Paul's talking about. Well, he says he's granted you to believe, and also to suffer. Does he grant this to individuals or not?

He grants... no, he grants... He never grants an individual to suffer? And it points to the suffer when Paul, when the

Holy Spirit spoke to the prophet, Joppa, or something like that, and said, as his belt is, this is how it's going to be for you, specifically?

No, I was trying to address Philippians where you were starting at. No, you made a broad statement.

I just countered it with Scripture. Yeah, we know that. Salvation came to the Jews. They rejected him.

He came to his own. His own did not receive him, but as many as received him, to them he gave. So there's a progression.

He came to Israel, and then after they rejected him, then the gospel was opened up to the

Gentiles. And that's when faith... that's what Paul was talking about, that it's been granted to the

Gentiles to believe, but also to suffer for his sake. There's not any idea of a special granting of a gift of faith so they believe.

Another problem you had was that you were saying we're divine by nature, and that's equivalent to us being little gods.

Then you say we're not little gods, but we're divine by nature. And you said ontologically that it's our nature, our essence to be divine, and yet we sin as divine creatures, but God who's divine doesn't sin.

And you have a huge inconsistency there. I'm just pointing out a multitudinous amount of errors, not to mention equivocation. No, no, that's not an error,

Matt. Matt, that's not an error. It's not an error. This is what

Paul is arguing. And I just believe him. That's what you think Paul was arguing.

So you believe what you think Paul was arguing. Well, of course that's what

I believe he was arguing. Yeah, that's what you believe. And you believe that's what he's arguing, so you believe what you think Paul was arguing.

That's right. I just take what you say and work with it, and it falls apart.

The idea of us being divine by nature, which is what you said. Well, you haven't shown anything falls apart. Let's try this.

Because the thing, John, that I'm noticing, your position seems to be if you believe it, it's authoritative.

Because you're just saying this is the meaning of the text. Matt's asked you a couple times how you're coming to conclusions you're coming to.

In other words, how are you interpreting it to come to that conclusion? So here'd be an interesting thing for you to try.

Take a passage and try to expound how it proves any of the arguments that you've made.

Because Matt's tried to show you you're just saying, well, I'm just reading the text. Yes, you're reading into the text.

And I agree with that. Matt already proved that you're reading into the text. Because the texts don't say exactly what you say they say.

You even said at one point that you were assuming the point that that's what the text is saying.

So you've got to deal with what the text actually says. Because otherwise, I think

Matt's really proving the point that you are guilty of what you accuse Calvinists.

You've made a lot of claims. You've just assumed the Scripture supports it. And you throw out

Scripture without actually digging into what it actually means. And you're reading into the Scripture stuff. Obviously, Andrew, you haven't listened to anything.

We spent most of this program talking about Acts 17 and Paul's argument there. The whole point is you have yet to exegete that passage.

You just say, well, this is what it says. You assume your conclusion. That's called confirmation bias.

So try. I think this would be entertaining because I don't think you can do it.

I'm just saying. I'd like to see you exegete that passage and show how you come to the conclusion you come to.

Look, I can't do it any more clearly than I did. And it's clear to me that you're just not seeing the argument.

That's fine. That's fine. But don't accuse me of not exegeting the passage.

There's a reason we don't see it. Because it's not there. Because it relies on several fallacies.

And what are those? You have a fallacy of equivocation. You take the word sons and children and you take it in the physical realm.

Do you realize that Jesus was actually not an offspring of God the Father? You don't think human beings are made in his image?

Okay. I asked a very direct question. What does it mean that humans are made in the image of God?

Well, hold on. I mean, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, right? This is amazing.

So you just jump from point to point. I ask you a direct question. Okay. I'm not trying to ignore your questions.

I'm not trying to ignore your questions. I'm just trying to figure out where you're going. Go ahead.

What was your first question again? We'll stick with the last one. You said, do I not believe that we're made in the image of God?

What does it mean to be made in the image of God? It's a clarifying question. Yeah.

I believe that human beings are like little

God idols that we image God.

I believe that's the word that is used in the Hebrew scriptures as far as this image has...

It's like an imager. So we image God. That's how

I understand it. We have certain attributes, but not all of His attributes. God is emotional.

We're emotional. Right. I agree. Some attributes God can't share.

We can't be omnipotent, omniscient, but we can know we can have some power.

Now that we know what the image of God means, then it doesn't mean what you were assuming and arguing for that because we have children, therefore we're part

God. No, the argument... What I said, Andrew, and what Paul argues is that we share...

In some way, we share the divine nature. And I said from the start, I don't know exactly what that means, but in some sense, we share the divine nature.

That's all I said because we're related like a father to his children. That's the argument

Paul's making. That's not the argument Paul's making. That's the argument you assume. Matt went through that. Matt actually broke down the text.

Your argument is based on a fallacy of equivocation on a child -to -parent relationship used in a physical sense compared to a title son.

I'm going to ask this again because I'm really curious to the answer. Is Jesus Christ the physical offspring of God the

Father? No, not the physical offspring of God the Father. So then to argue for the physical relationship between a physical father and physical child and then make that your argument for a relationship you admit is not a physical one is a fallacy of equivocation.

You're using it two different ways, but using the same terminology. Therefore, your argument can't be right because it's invalid.

Now, what I just did was go through and show why your argument is flawed.

What I'm asking you to do is not assume the text. Don't just sit there and say, I'm agreeing with Paul. You're not agreeing with Paul because you're not making the argument

Paul makes. Matt went through this with you and explained that. Matt went through and showed you exactly what this is quoting.

Are you even aware that it's a reference to other people? What others have said?

Like Matt said. You're talking about the poets that he's quoted? Yeah. Yes, but the fact is he quotes them, but then he affirms it.

See, you're ignoring, you're totally ignoring his argument. Why does he quote them? Matt even gave you this, so we'll see if you were paying attention to him.

Why does Paul quote them? Well, he says, even your own poets have said, we are his offspring.

And he says, truly, he says, let's see, anyways, yeah, see, you just are not dealing,

I don't think you're dealing with 29. Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, what is he meaning by that then?

Paul says this. He just quoted the poets who said, we are also his offspring.

And he says, therefore, since we are the offspring of God, let's just stop right there.

What does Paul mean, Andrew? So he says, being then

God's offspring. Now, in a sense, are we God's offspring? Well, we're made in the image of God.

But is he taking something that they know, and then something that they quote, and then springboarding off of that into something different?

Yes or no? Well, I'm asking you the question, Andrew, here.

The answer is yes. Since we are the offspring of God, no, the question is, what does

Paul mean? Since we are the offspring of God, what does Paul mean by that phrase? Sure, he's taking this phrase that they're familiar with, and he's springboarding off of that and using it in a different way to then get into a topic that he wants to talk about.

It's basically my spiritual transition game in practice. He's taking something and then springboarding it into what he says we ought not think that the divine being is like gold and silver or stone, an image formed in our imagination or of man.

Now, let me ask you a question. Where is he when he says this? He's in Mars Hill, I think.

That's right. What is it that he started discussing? What is it he's looking at on Mars Hill? What do they have all around?

Yeah, all the idols. Okay, so is he referencing this as God being a spirit, we being a spirit versus dead idols that are made of gold, silver, and stone?

Well, you know, he's talking about the real God. He noticed there was an idol to the unknown

God. Well, to him, I'm going to proclaim it because you guys don't know him. I'm going to proclaim him to you.

Okay, so you didn't answer the question. Let's ask it again. Answer the question. Is he doing a comparison between the spiritual and the physical?

These idols they have which are just made of gold, silver, and stone versus God and us who are spiritual beings as well as physical?

Yes. Very good. So you now have your answer. He's using the difference between idols that are made of wood and stone compared to human beings who carry the divine nature.

No. Not that they carry the divine nature. Okay. How are we supposed to know

God has the divine nature then? If we're looking at his children, how is that going to give us information about the divine nature?

Oh, very simple. Because he created everything out of nothing. That's how we can know he's the divine nature.

We don't look at us to prove that God is divine.

Well, that would be one interpretation of this text, but I'm not...

You actually already agreed with my interpretation. Now you're trying to backpedal because you want to hold to your belief.

No, I can agree with something you say in that it doesn't change what I believe.

So, the point is he's not saying anything about us being divine, is he?

He's saying that we ought not think that the divine being, so it's the divine being, is not like gold.

So the comparison... You're missing it. You see, no one can see God, Andrew.

All we can see are the children. Now, since Paul argues that we are all his offspring, therefore because we're his offspring we should know that the divine nature is not like that.

It's all a comparison of the children and then we infer from the children to the father.

Okay, that's all assumed from the text. See, I broke this down and walked through it and you ended up having to agree that this is what the text is saying, but you don't see anything in here that says we are divine.

You see nothing in here that says... That's all you're reading into it. That's eisegesis. That's you putting a meaning into the text.

No, it's you ignoring what Paul is really saying. So the fact that you see this which is not there, you can't show how it is there.

Well, I can't force you to see it. That's right, because it's not there. No, it's there.

So, and this is the thing. You say you're still learning in theology and yet,

I gotta tell you, I've yet to find a heresy you don't agree with as in your discussion with Matt.

I mean, you hit Jehovah Witnesses with the annihilationism. You hit Mormonism in there. And what kind of fallacy do we call this,

Andrew? Well, no, this is what you actually did. You actually promoted the same teachings. It's not that I'm saying that your positions are wrong because they are associated with that.

I'm saying it just seems like there's not a heresy you don't seem to enjoy. Well, I don't know what you mean by heresy, but...

Okay. Go to QARM, and if you go to QARM, there is a doctrine grid.

And it will give you the core doctrines that if you disagree with those, that's called heresy.

Then you'll know. That'd be the easiest way. Here's the point that I want to point to you.

Should I believe in heresy or believe what God teaches? You believe in heresy because you don't believe in what

God teaches. When you have to read into God's Word, and you twist

God's Word and give it a new meaning, you no longer have God's Word, you have man's Word. By the way, that's

Calvin. I know you love Calvin, so I figured I'd give you a quote from him. So, that's what you've done.

Because there's nothing in this text that says what you claim it says. That's the thing. What this text says is exactly what

Matt said and what I said, not what you read into the text. And you want to say, well, we don't see it.

Somehow now, you're almost arguing as Gnosticism that you have an enlightened knowledge that we just can't...

No, no, I'm just... Look, I can only say so much. I'll leave it to others to judge whether you know who's right on this or not.

Yeah, okay. I think you made it clear enough for folks to see.

You're trying to argue that a physical relationship is a direct relation to a relationship between God the

Father and God the Son. You're saying that we need beings to know that God's divine.

There's nothing in this text that says we need human beings to know that God's divine.

You read that into the text. That's not in the text. It is in the text. That's why he points out the offspring.

We are his offspring. We are his children. Yeah, and so... And he says, therefore, since we are the children, his whole argument rests on the fact that we are

God's children and because we're his children, God is going to be like us, not like the wood and the stone.

If you don't see it, that's fine. We can go to something else. I don't want to hear charges of I'm a heretic because I'm pointing out the obvious.

No, you aren't pointing out the obvious. You're a heretic because you're teaching things that are against what

Scripture teaches. I'm just teaching against covenant. I just don't agree with you,

Andrew. I have a different interpretation. That's all. I agree. You have a very different interpretation.

The difference is I can explain the rules of interpretation I'm following. You can't.

I mean, you explain to Matt and I, please, explain to Matt and I how you're getting the arguments that you're making because that's what you haven't done.

Matt walked through and I walked through where we're getting it from the text. You just read into it and then say, well, that's what it is.

If you can't see it, it's your fault. So, you need to explain. He's doing this.

He's springboarding from one topic to another just like he did when he says he started with the unknown

God, the idol of the unknown God, and he jumps into this discussion.

The whole goal of this is he's talking about the issue of their idols.

Is that true or false? Yes, that's what... Okay, hold on.

So, the central argument that he's making is about idols versus the true

God, correct? No, he uses... His goal is to preach the gospel to these guys.

So, he takes the opportunity of this situation with the idols that he was noticing to preach the gospel to them.

And in that course of preaching the gospel, he says certain statements and he uses certain arguments.

And this one particular argument has to do with the fact that a father is like their children...

are like their fathers. He's counting on that fact that we know children are like their parents.

He uses that fact to make his argument since we are God's children, then we know we shouldn't think that the divine nature is like wood and stone.

Because look, we're his children. Listen, let's walk through this. You're assuming that. Now, let's see if the text actually says what you say.

So, he starts by talking about the idols, correct? Yeah.

Okay. He ends with talking about the idols, correct? Well, he ends it, you know...

In verse 29, he's talking about the idols. Right. Okay. So, the issue is their idolatry, correct?

Exactly. Okay. Which is what I said earlier and you said I was wrong. So, the issue is their idolatry and he's trying to share the gospel and the essential thing that he has to get through with them is their idolatry.

Right. He's got to get to explaining that their idolatry, them creating a carved image no different than God did in the

Old Testament where he talks about these idols that are made with hands and have eyes that can't see and ears that can't hear.

It's the same argument being made here with a contrasting of beings that have a spirit versus something that's made out of a chunk of wood.

A chunk of wood doesn't have a spirit. Therefore, it can't be divine.

It can't be God because it doesn't have a divine spirit. It can't be divine without the spirit, correct?

Well, you know, I don't know exactly how Paul's using it, but look, it's obvious he was walking around and there's all these idols.

Imagine statues, whatever, all this stuff. These are artworks walking around and Paul is like, now he's telling them, look, you guys, even your own poets have said we are his offspring and look, since we are his children,

God, we shouldn't think that the divine nature is like, you know, look around you. Look at all this. God isn't like this.

We are his children. Look at us because you can see us. We're not like these things.

You know God is not like those things. He's counting on the similarity of children with their fathers to prove the point.

So he's clearly using it as a springboard, just like he used the springboard of the idol to the unknown

God. So his emphasis, this is the whole point, when you do hermeneutics, you don't emphasize on the minor things and make it the major things, and that's exactly what you're doing.

His main argument is the idols. Your main argument is the one word offspring.

So you're taking something that's a minor point, reading into it a whole bunch and then making that the major point.

That's not the point of this text. The point of this text is about idolatry. And so as long as you make the minor, and so this is the rule of interpretation that you're breaking, that you are taking the minor and making it the major.

And you're taking the major and making it a minor. You don't do that. When you interpret scripture, you focus on the major, and that becomes the argument that gets made.

The other things are supportive of that. So the supporting thing that God is a spirit and idols are not is supportive.

But there's not anything here where he's saying that we have a divine nature in any way.

You're reading that in. It doesn't say we being the offspring having a divine nature.

No. That's not what it says. It says being then God's offspring, we ought not think.

See, that's a totally different thing now. We ought not think that the divine being is like gold.

In other words, the argument being is if we're made in his image with a spirit, that's what you already said means to be in the image of God that we have some of his attributes, one of them being that we have a spirit and are spiritual like God is spirit and spiritual.

That's what we already established is it means to be made in the image of God. Therefore, we being a spirit should know that God would have a spirit and not be something made of purely physical things without a spirit.

Very simple. That's the meaning. But why do I say it's meaning? Because the major thing is on the idol, not what you're reading into it as that we are divine nature.

There's nowhere that says we have a divine nature. I can't fathom that you're missing

Paul's argument and comparing the children to the father. You do see that, don't you?

No, I don't because nowhere does it say anything about children and father anywhere in here, does it? It says twice.

We are his offspring. That doesn't say children and father, does it? No, if we're his offspring...

You're assuming a meaning of offspring, aren't you? An offspring is a child, yeah.

Is that the only meaning of it? It's pretty clear that's what

Paul means here. No, it isn't. You just did it. You assume the thing that you want it to say.

You assume it. Oh, it's pretty clear. Well, that's not really always clear. Well, for Paul's argument to be understandable, that's what we have to assume.

Okay, so it has to assume that. I think for Paul's argument to work because what he's doing is...

Hold on, turn to Mark 9 .29 and I'm going to give you the same word used here that you said this is the only meaning.

It's the word kind when it says, and he said to them, this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.

That's the same word for offspring. Does that mean divine nature? Does that mean a father and son?

No, it doesn't? I don't believe so. No, it wouldn't. So therefore...

We know that from the context. Hold on, John. Therefore, the fact that this word is used elsewhere with a totally different meaning than the way you're using it says that your conclusion is wrong.

That this is not the only way that we can see this. Because Mark 9 uses it differently.

Mark uses the same word and he's... Yeah, but context, we determine a word's meaning by context.

That's right, and you're reading into it something that it's not saying. There's nothing in here in the context that says that it has to do with physical father, son, as you used it.

There's nothing in here. I asked you, what in here is father, son? Look, the fact is he points out that we are children and he says...

Where does it say that? Verse 28, I think, and 29 of Acts 17.

Where? At the end of verse 28. For in him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said.

For we are also his offspring. So we're also his kind. We are his offspring.

We already showed you that that word can be interpreted kind, not offspring. Yeah, it can be, but if you interpret it kind, then

Paul's argument doesn't make any sense. Sure it does. It makes perfect sense because I'll ask this again, and I want you to show me exactly where father and son is in the text.

You say it's there, with the word offspring, that does not mean what you think it means.

That's the whole problem. I just gave you Mark 9, 29 where the same word is used and it doesn't mean father -son.

It means kind, and it's translated kind. In fact, it's translated kind very often. Well, is it translated kind here?

It could be. No, is it here? That's a translator's thing, but I'm going back to the

Greek. But these translators thought children, or offspring, No they didn't! How do you know they thought children and offspring?

Children aren't mentioned anywhere here. I'm saying they thought offspring. So now you know the mind of translators.

John, do you see the problem you're having? Would you let me finish a question,

Andrew? I said, or make a point, it was obvious that the translators thought offspring was a better choice than kind in this place.

Now, are you going to argue with me about that? Yes, I just did. Because you're assuming that.

I'm assuming that because they used that word. I'm assuming if they would have wanted to use the word kind, if they thought that was better, they would have used kind.

John, you've got to relax. Now listen, this word is used as offspring only two times out of the twenty times in the entire

New Testament. Two times is the translated offspring. These are the only two.

It's most often translated as kind or kinds. So the reality is you have the burden of proof because you're saying this is its meaning and yet it's more often translated as kinds or family or people.

It's not translated. Hold on, listen. It's not anywhere translated as father, son, as you say it is.

So you said this proves it's father, son, and yet there's nothing in the text that says about father and son.

His argument demands it. No, it doesn't. Point out a translation of Acts 17, 28, and 29 where they use the word kind.

I don't need to go to a translation when I'm looking at what the Greek word is. And I'm giving you how the

Greek word does not relate to father, son there.

So if it does, then you've got a big problem with what you're arguing from Mark 9. Listen, I've already showed you the word kind.

If you want to translate it as kind, that fits in fine because the issue is whether it is a spiritual, the immaterial, versus the material.

That's the issue. That's the issue Paul is arguing. That's the main issue. So saying that we are his offspring in kind has nothing to do with father and son, which your whole argument is based on.

Now, there's nothing other than the word offspring that you assume a reading of it.

The word offspring doesn't only mean what you're implying.

Therefore, this does not teach father, son. You're assuming that.

That's the whole thing I'm trying to show you. You're assuming that. But you can't answer the question why we should not think that the divine nature is like gold or silver.

Now, why should we think that if we're looking at a person? Well, we shouldn't think that a block of wood, a piece of gold, silver, or stone have a spiritual nature.

There's nothing spirit about them. Where does it say that about the spirit?

A spiritual nature? That's a fair question. It says that they're not divine.

That's the argument, is it not? That these idols are not divine? Is that not the argument he's making?

No, the argument is we are his children. Since we are his children... Children aren't mentioned anywhere in here.

Read that in. He's saying... I'm telling you...

We are his offspring. John, hold on. Hold on. As someone who at least is a

Pelagian, you may be in the sinless perfectionist camp, which if that is the case, then you keep sinning by getting angry.

You've got to stop that. You'd be losing your salvation and you can't get that back.

I'm not one of those. Here's the thing. You're assuming the meaning of offspring, ignoring what the word means everywhere else in Scripture and how it's used.

that's not how you interpret. I've shown you that you violated one principle of interpreting the minor as the major, major as the minor.

You're violating another... That was your opinion. No. I already established it with you that this is what the main thing was talking about.

His main argument is not about idols. His main argument is that God is not like an idol and we can tell that by looking at his children.

You add that extra part on because you know you're wrong. There's nothing in here about children and the word doesn't mean children.

Offspring means children. No, it doesn't. That's what the poet was talking about.

That's not what this word means. What was the poet talking about, Andrew? Matt, you might know better than I because I'm not familiar with the poem that it came from.

Matt, do you know... It's erotist but I don't know the context of the whole thing. He was just quoting this in order to witness to the pagans and he used pagan theology to try and get a door opened in order to talk about paganism because they had the same view that John here has.

Yeah. A lot of them did. The fact is you're saying offspring means children.

I'll challenge you to go to Mark 9, 29 again and tell me... They said to them, this offspring cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.

It doesn't mean offspring in Mark. It's the same word. You're saying the word means children.

Words have semantic ranges. There's nothing in here that forces it to be about children.

Why don't you pull up BDAG and see what it says about that word in Acts 17. It has a lot of different things, one of which is kind.

No, it won't say... Family, relative, nation, people, class, kind. That's BDAG.

If there is a reference... I just gave you BDAG. No, it should list a reference to Acts 17, 28 and show what word is used there.

It'll explain the different meanings that it can use and then it'll group those texts under each...

You know how it works, right? What is it saying about what form of the word should be used in Acts 17?

They have it as esterial... I can't even say the word.

Ancestral stock, descendant, high priestly descendant is the main subject.

Ancestral stock or descendant. That's not saying there has to be children.

High priestly descent? Don't forget to throw that in there. That's your meaning, is it not?

Descendant. That only has one argument, right?

Descendant can only be one thing? Look, the translators use offspring, that kind.

It's to show that they understand, I think. Paul is depending on the relationship between children and God for his argument.

Are we descendant from God? Did God create us? Yes. Then we're descendant from God?

Then we're not his children. Look, look,

Paul is the one making this argument. Yes, but Paul's not making your argument. That's the whole point.

You're reading into it. Well, I think if someone is not stuck against seeing it,

Andrew, might understand where I'm coming from. What you have,

John, and we'll go on and see if anyone else has questions after, but you have the problem of having confirmation bias.

You're starting with the conclusion and you only accept the information that you see that it means.

I've shown you how this word means different things. Even when you want to go to BDAG and say descendant, and you see that we are descendant from God, it doesn't mean we're his children.

John 1 .12 makes it clear that not everyone's a child of God. So we're not all children of God.

So him speaking about children, to use your argument, children of God in your argument, to be referring here, would violate what

John 1 .12 says. Because that would say that these people are not children of God, since they don't believe in God.

That would just be to misunderstand the context of John and understand he's talking about...

So everything with you is that everything is to misunderstand. No, everything with me is to understand the context where we're at.

No, you're not. Not to look at this context here. You can't jump over to John and say well, hey, it means this over here, so it can't mean this over here.

That's a poor hermeneutic. No, that's actually the proper hermeneutic that you would build theology based on what all of Scripture says.

So the phrase children of God, the way you're using it, is used there and says that not everyone is a child of God.

That's a clear teaching. So there's nothing here that says child of God. What you end up with...

This is where, John, my heart breaks for you because you are so blinded with your heresy.

It breaks. I just hate the fact that you continue to believe this stuff and get so hard set on it with so many people that have tried to teach you.

You say you're still learning, but you turn a deaf ear to the truth. And it's concerning.

Andrew, if you could bring an argument or a text that's properly presented and backed up...

There's none that you'll accept, John. There's none that you'll accept. Here's a clear example of it.

Here's a clear example of it. The contrast that Paul's making is not that we are somehow divine or that we're children of God.

You're focusing on one word and making that everything. You're ignoring all of the context for that word, which is all about idols.

That's the main thing. It is about idols, but it's about the fact that Paul was seeing all these idols they constructed, and he's trying to tell them, look,

God's not like that. Even your own poets have said, we are his offspring. We're not like what?

We are his offspring. Like the wood and stone of these idols that he's looking at.

So how come... I agree that that's the main thing. That we are not like wood and...

Or God. God is not like these idols. Okay, good. Now, there's nothing in there that teaches that we are his sons.

It says we're his offspring. And that can have multiple meanings. Listen, hold on,

John. If that was the argument Paul was making, why doesn't he use the Greek word that means what you're arguing?

Why does he use a Greek word that more often means something that's similar? That's the meaning of the word.

It has similarity. Maybe it had something to do with the poet he quoted and taking off what he said.

Oh, so maybe the poet didn't mean what you're saying either. Okay. I can agree with that. But you can't get away,

Andrew, from the fact that by looking at his offspring, that's how we know God has a divine nature.

But the offspring, that one word, is not the word that he would use if he was making your argument.

That's the point. No, because Paul says we are all his offspring.

What does he mean by that? Okay, so there you go. We are all his kind? Is that what he's saying?

We are all descendants. That's what you wanted to look at BDAG, and that's how it's used in BDAG.

We are all created from him. We are all, in that sense, descendants.

Now... Hold on. If you're going to separate God from us like that, then that's what

I'm saying. Then his argument doesn't work. Really? You mean being made in the image of God being spiritual doesn't work with material things?

No, I'm saying if you take away the similarity of the offspring and then arguing from that to God, you just lose any argument at all in there.

That's what he's saying. That's the obvious important way of saying, we are his offspring, therefore we know that God isn't like these things, because we are his offspring.

And Paul happens to use the language of divine nature. That's the only reason I brought it up.

I'm just telling you what Paul's saying. No, you're not. That's the whole point. You're not saying what

Paul's saying. You're reading into it based off of English, not the Greek. The Greek doesn't make the argument you're making.

If he did, he would use a different word that actually means offspring. He doesn't use that word.

He uses a word that has the meaning of kind or descendant or to be in like manner.

You'd have to be in Paul's head to decide something like that. No, we can look at the words he uses.

This is right from BDAG. If you look just above what you wanted to focus on, we'll just do this and see if we could just share the screen so you can see it, because I know you missed stuff.

I'll highlight it right there. A noun expressive of relationships of various degrees and kinds.

That's what this word means. This is not a word that is designed to mean offspring as children the way you're using it.

That's the point. If Paul wanted to make your argument, he would not use this word.

The use of this word is the proof that you are not correct, because he's not using the word that makes your argument in the

Greek, not in the English. You're stuck on the English because it makes the argument you wish it said.

Paul's not making your argument because he's not using the words that would make your argument. With that, because we only have about 15 minutes left and we want to get to open

Q &A, I'm going to bring Edison up first, because he was in earlier.

Edison, I'm just going to mute you while Edison asks his question.

Edison, you're in. Hi, can you hear me? All right, thank you.

It's been very interesting as I've listened to the discussion, but I'd like to ask a question that's not related to the debate, if it's okay.

Go ahead. You're in a much cooler environment this time, I see. I'm using a

PC. I'm using a personal computer. Not anymore on my tablet, but anyway,

I'd like to ask a question with regards to Catholicism.

Catholicism would argue that the scripture is not sufficient. They would argue that there's a need for the traditions, and by traditions, not the letters of the fathers, not the early writings, but rather traditions.

I don't know what they mean by that, but I pointed to them that these traditions are they the letters of the fathers or not, and they said, no, it's the traditions the church has been carrying throughout the existence of the

Christendom, and I've quoted to them 2

Timothy 3, verse 16 that says all scripture is breathed out by God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

I asked them if we have that kind of text with regards to traditions, and they said in response that the verse never said that scripture alone is the breath of God.

They were looking for the word alone in 2 Timothy 3, verse 16. I'd like to hear

Brother Andrew, your comment, or Brother Matt's comment with regards to their response. Matt, do you have a response to that?

Yeah, sure, no problem. When they say that the word alone isn't there, then they're admitting that the scriptures are inspired, and they say yes, okay.

Can they show me just ask them to show me where tradition is inspired.

They'll just say, well, the authority of the church tells you that they have sacred tradition, and it's inspired. Say, how do you know that's the case?

Show me that in scripture, because you've admitted that the scriptures are inspired. So show me from God's authoritative word.

Because if they're going to say that tradition is inspired, then they're saying tradition and scripture are equal, and both must be considered as authoritative.

Since we both admit that scripture is authoritative, just say show me from the authoritative word. If they can't, and they go to tradition, then you can start asking questions about their tradition.

How does tradition work, and what is sacred tradition? And I have on CARM, I have a whole bunch of questions related to the issue of tradition, sacred tradition on CARM.

Let's see if I can find it really fast. Sacred tradition, let's see if I can find it.

Questions for Catholics on sacred tradition, there we go. I went through, and I just started asking, you know, what exactly is sacred tradition?

How is it declared to be sacred? What does it mean when the church determines that something is true, sacred tradition?

Did the apostles, did they intend for there to be sacred tradition? Or is sacred tradition something invented by the church?

And I have a bunch of verses listed, and then I got a bunch of other questions dealing with the transmission to the centuries.

How is it transmitted to the centuries? Is sacred tradition transmitted to the centuries orally, or is it by record, or divine revelation?

What is it? Start asking these kind of questions, and you'll find out they don't have any answers. Well, one of the things

I'll ask, I'll say, does Bishop Bob talk to Bishop Frank in the Vatican and say, hey, do you hear the one about Mary walking down the road?

Oh, no, tell me. Is it sacred tradition? How do they know it's sacred tradition? How do they know?

Is it oral? How do they know these things are reliable? How do they know? Well, they say the authority of the church tells them it is.

Where'd they get that? From sacred tradition. Well, you know, there's all kinds of problems here, and I just started asking questions like that.

And I have this link, questions for Catholics on sacred tradition. I have 65 questions, 65 issues.

Let's see if the Scriptures are included. Yeah. So there's questions.

1 Corinthians 11 -12, or excuse me, 2, 2 Thessalonians 2 -15, 2 Thessalonians 3 -6, various issues of tradition go through the

Scriptures. There's a lot there, and that's how I recommend that you start cross -examining them on this.

You'll find they don't have answers. That's good.

I've noticed a circularity of their reasoning when they said that they have to follow what they believe because the church said so, and how do we know that the church is true?

Well, because they contend that that's the only, that's the church of Christ founded, so we can question that.

Well, they say that. That's another claim. How do you know the church, Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church? I say, you make a claim, but how do you know he founded it?

That's what he founded. And they're going to say, well, because of their papacy and their authority for the papacy and things like that.

That's what they're going to do. Right? Well, trust me, you can do it.

It's not a big deal. So, Catholic authority. Let's see, I'm going to do that on my site here.

Does it have the authority of Christ? This is one of the things. Here's another article.

Does the Roman Catholic Church have the authority of Christ? This is what the

Bible says in Luke 5. But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.

He said the paralytic. I say to you, you know, get up and walk. And in Matthew 10, 1 -8,

Jesus summoned his 12 disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons, freely you receive, freely you give. So you say, okay, so this is the authority that's demonstrated in Scripture, that the apostolic authority is given by Christ.

They're going to say, yes, right. To the apostles, yeah. And then down to the priesthood, right? Yes, that's right.

And the magisterium. Okay, good. So we know that the authority that Jesus gave them, the disciples, was to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.

Does the Roman Catholic Church do this? And they're going to say, well, yeah, the Roman Catholic Church does it all the time. Okay. And so just like they did in the

Bible, right? Yeah, that's right. Okay. So Jesus raised the dead on command.

And he came up and touched the coffin, and bearers came to halt. And he said, young man, I say to you, arise. A dead man sat up and began to speak.

Jesus gave him back to his mother. Peter raised the dead on command. You go to Acts 9, 40 -41.

Peter healed on command, Acts 9, 34. Paul healed on command,

Acts 14, 8 -10. And they'll say, does your Roman Catholic Church do this? Let's just see.

They have the apostolic authority. I want to see them exercise it the same way the disciples did, or the apostles did. And they don't.

So the Catholic Church claims it has the authority of the apostles. But can the

Pope and the bishops do what Jesus and the apostles did? By command, claim certain healings, resurrections, and things like that.

And no, they can't. So how do we know they have the authority? It's just a claim.

Exactly. It's a claim. I actually noticed the verse that they were denying in 2

Timothy chapter 3, verse 16. When you notice verse 17, it says there that the man of God will be fully equipped.

In the King James rendering, it says there that the man of God may be perfect. It's certainly furnished with all good work.

So the Scripture itself can make a man of God perfect. In verse 15, in the same chapter, the

Scripture itself can make you wise of the salvation. So I don't really see why they are denying.

Or even the word alone in that verse is not necessary for me.

I'm not sure your question is about the verses. No, I was just saying that I don't see how they don't see the sufficiency of the

Scriptures in 2 Timothy chapter 3 when in verse 15 it says there that the

Scriptures are able to make you wise of the salvation. And in verse 16, it is all teaching, training, and rebuke is there.

And verse 17, it says it can make you perfect. The word is not perfect in the

Greek. It's artios. It means complete. I wouldn't say perfect.

I understand the sentiment when you use the word perfect. It has certain meanings to it that then become a problem. But it's artios.

And the word telios deals with the word perfect. I was just using the rendering of the

King James. Yeah, it's best to stay with the King James when you do apologetics. Well, anyway.

If you don't mind, I got one last question. Sure. It's still with the same

Catholicism issue. In line with traditions, they would call

What was that? Yeah. There's a verse in I think that's 1

Timothy. No, no, no. 2 Thessalonians 2 .15

Oh, yeah. By word or by letter. Hold fast to the tradition.

It says there. They were insisting that Paul and the apostles were teaching not through the scriptures alone, which is letter, but also verbally

That's where they get the non -written traditions that are only exclusive in the church.

How do we comment on that verse? Read the context. What's it about? I'll help you out.

It's about the return of Christ. And so, that's what it's about.

Go to the first part of the chapter. Alright. It says,

Now we request you, brethren, to regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Alright. And then verse 3,

Let no one deceive you. Okay, the antichrist has got to come first. The mystery of lawlessness is still at work, verse 7.

Verse 10, Be with deception and wickedness. For this reason God will send a looting influence, verse 11.

Verse 13, But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.

And he called you through our gospel, verse 15. So, brethren, stand firm and hold to the tradition which we've taught.

It's about the return of Christ. And he's just telling them, look, stand firm in what we've told you already, okay?

And that's all that's going on there. Read the context. Yeah. Go through and read about the tradition verses and things like that.

Yeah, I'll check that one out then. Yeah. That has been very helpful to me personally throughout the years.

I've looked to it, I think, way back 2013 or 12. And it's been very helpful to me personally.

Thank you. There's a lot there. I'm glad it's been there to help. For now, it's still there.

But, you know, praise God. It may not last too much longer in this country.

You know. I'm expecting a time when they're going to tell you you have to take that down. Yeah. Well, Edison, I look forward to actually meeting you in person,

I hope, this year. I sent you that link. Yeah, on Facebook. I'm not sure if you know our pastor,

Brother Mel Caparis, Brother Andrew. He's with Living Words Cebu. Okay.

No, I don't know that I know him. I may have met him once, but I don't know. What's the name again?

Brother Mel Caparis. Mel Caparis. I'll try to remember the names.

I'll ask the host and see if I've met him before.

He's with Living Words Cebu. Yeah. Living Words Christian Church. Yeah, because I know

Living Orders, I think Asia is involved with putting this together.

So, with that, I guess,

Matt, we didn't get to talk a whole lot about new articles or anything going up on CARM, but you have anything on CARM that...

No. All right. So, folks, I will state, just keep praying for Matt and his wife.

His wife is still recovering from surgery that was a long time ago.

And so, still be praying for them. It is the end of the year.

This is actually a time where most, at least American ministries like CARM and Striving Fraternity make much of their finances.

So, if there are people who are looking to give for the end year tax deduction,

I don't... I know too many folks that donate to Striving Fraternity just for the tax deduction, but if folks want to donate, there's two ways you can donate.

If you go to CARM, just go to carm .org, and there is a Donate button there on the right side.

I think if I remember correctly, it's a big red button. Let's take a look. It says Donate. It's blue. Blue. Ah.

Okay. Oh, it's green. It's green. Oh, it's green. Mine says it's light blue.

And it's CARM. So, that's a good place to go. Also, you can go to strivingfraternity .org slash donate.

Here's the thing, folks. Both Matt and I do this full -time.

We rely on monthly donations. They count a lot more than just a one -time donation.

CARM has five full -time employees. That takes more than just a one -time donation.

So, if there's ways you can... If you find this show beneficial, one way you can help us is by donating monthly.

Another way you can help would be by sharing this. If you're watching a YouTube video or if you're listening to it on podcast.

If you're listening to it on the podcast, and if you're not, go to whatever podcast app you have and just look for Apologetics Live.

It'll come up. On podcast, you can share that as well. That's a great way of just letting us know that there's others who are interested and helping to get more people listening in and getting some teaching.

That's some ways you can help support us. Obviously, pray. That's important.

We believe in prayer very much. So, we need your prayers. We also try to do things with partnering with other groups.

John, I'm going to ask you, because we partner with you each week. We do the after show through the council.

Is there going to be an after show tonight? Because I know you've got to go to work. Unfortunately, I'm at work right now.

So, I won't be able to host the show tonight. I tried to see if I can get somebody else to do it, but no one seemed to step up.

So, there may not be one going on tonight. Okay. So, we partner with the guys at the council to put on the after show.

The after show is usually where we get. This would have been a livelier after show with John and everyone in the council to go back and forth.

It would have been fun. I hope next week, Matt, there's a guy on Facebook who came into one of the groups that you and I manage,

Christian Apologetics, and making all kinds of arguments that there's always contradictions in the

Bible. I told him I'd answer those contradictions on my rap report podcast. I said, give me your best ones.

I don't want you to say I was cherry picking. Give me the ones you think are the best ones. And he couldn't quite do that.

In fact, he kept saying he was getting lots of challenges. I asked him to come in, but he told me the link wasn't working.

And yet, we can see here the room is filled with people that the link worked for. So, I don't know if he's just a keyboard warrior, but maybe

Paul will come in next week and he can give you his reasons for his disbelief in God.

And we can see how valid those are. So, hopefully we'll have that next week. But until then, just remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.