Matt Slick Q&A, 2/1/2017

All right, so who's got a question? You want to talk about something?

What? Man! My debates and James White's debates with the atheists, so keep on watching.

OK. All right. Why do who...

Wait, what? Why do they care? Right?

Oh, they care because they hate God. And you are motivated out of what you believe.

Now, if I say they hate God and an atheist is listening, and atheists are going to say, no, we don't hate God, we don't believe God exists. No, they hate

God. See, atheists tell me, for example, they lack belief in God, and so what they'll do is they'll say, we don't have a position, we don't affirm or deny

God. And I'll say, I always do this, I'll go, oh, well, the Bible says God exists, so therefore he exists. Others say that.

If you say that, why not? Because the Bible says that, so it doesn't make sense. I say, well, wait a minute.

I thought you said you didn't care, you didn't have a position. Well, they'll say, well, you're just being illogical. How am I being illogical?

And I get to this conversation. I just use that as a jumping off point. What happens is

I can find out what they believe. And you know,

I said, I'm not here to judge you guys, I didn't do anything like that. And my guy goes, you ought to talk to so -and -so, he's a

Mormon. You know, I said, that's probably not a good idea.

They said, why? I just heard, I'm hearing it back in here now, in the feed, Lindsay, now

I hear it all of a sudden. No biggie, just to let you know, you're doing something that's fine, no problem.

I can move it away from my ear, and they just talk like that, that's fine, no big deal, we'll figure it out later, just do what you gotta do.

Okay. We'll get to that in a sec. What was I saying? Oh, yeah.

They said, we want you, it's a Mormon, we want you to talk, and I said, probably wouldn't be a good idea. And they go, no, this kind of stuff, this is probably a good idea.

And I try to avoid the conversation. And a few weeks later, this Mormon comes up and talks to me, and no lie.

By the time we were done, and I was very polite, I was just countering him, I know stuff, you know, I didn't know what

I did, I didn't tell what I do for a living, you know, what I, now I do for a living. I didn't tell him what I was doing for 20 years at the time, or whatever it was.

Actually, it was about 25 years at the time. And by the time this Mormon was done, he had his fists clenched, and his jaw, and his lips were quivering.

I thought he was gonna take a swing at me. I just told you it wasn't a good idea, sorry, not trying to offend you,

I know what it is. And so that was the rev from then on, and then they understood, and the same things started happening.

I don't want to make anybody feel bad, it's my job, you know. I try to avoid it, look what happened.

So what's the question? From YouTube? Facebook, right?

Chase? Yeah, I'm on the list, yes, that's true.

Yes, next question. It's a yes or no question, not an open -ended question.

But, yes, I do hold some form of preterism. I'm a partial preterist, not a full preterist.

Full preterism is heresy. And yes, I'm all millennial. And, just to add this in, I believe that when

Jesus returns, the first ones taken are the wicked, not the good. And you go to Matthew 24, Luke 17, where it says,

So shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man, for they were eating, they were drinking, they were sitting in mirrors, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and a flood came and took them all away.

That's Matthew 24. Luke 17 says, and the flood came and destroyed them all. The ones who were taken are the ones who were destroyed.

At the end of Luke 17, they ask Jesus, where are they taken? And he tells them, where the body is of vultures gather.

Then, all you do is go to Matthew 13, verse 30 in particular, where it's a parable of the wheat and the tares.

And Jesus says, That's a proper eschological view.

This age is the age to come. Christians are the wheat, the wicked are the tares.

Jesus says, the first ones taken are the wicked. That's my position.

It's a very uncommon position. But I'm forced to believe it, because that's what Jesus said. Hope that answers that question.

And I could do an eschatology study here sometime, if you guys want. Take a break, and do a map, and put everything in from this age to come.

If you want, I'll do it. Do it next week, whatever you guys want, and really mess you guys up. Good. And show you why pre -trib rapture didn't work.

If you want. Is that what you guys want? All right, then. We'll take a break from John 4.

Next week, I'll do an eschatology study. I'll announce it on the radio. I will defend colonialism post -trib rapture, and why the wicked are taken first, with the consequent, this age is the age to come.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. You know, we don't have to do verse by verse.

We could do tuples for a while, if you guys want. I'm game. Whatever you guys want. I want to finish

John. We won't take a year. Finish John 4. Take a break.

I could do whatever the people want, because I like tangents. John 4 first, and then you guys decide.

You guys decide. I can do John. We can finish John 4 next week, and then we could do eschatology if you guys want.

What? The rapture occurs concomitant with the return of Christ.

Not pre -wrath. It is. Yeah, I'm a right or wrong.

I'm a non -millennialist, which means that I believe we're in the millennial reign of Christ, that the term thousand is a figurative usage in John 20.

And I don't have any problem with the pre -millennial view. I just don't believe it. And so I believe that when

Jesus comes back, I don't exactly have these minutiae worked out, but the wicked will be taken first, and then we're going to be raptured, and then we'll have a new birth,

I believe. I mean, it's going to happen like in the same day or the same minute or a couple hours difference.

I don't know. That kind of thing. Hmm? Yeah. Yeah.

Now, just so you know, no eschatological position has all the answers.

There's strengths and weaknesses to all of them. But the argument that I'll present when I do this is pretty strong.

I've done it a couple of times in the past years. I've been teaching here in the area, and people are like, oh, wow.

What I'll do is we'll get the camera. We'll do the board. I'll put stuff out. We'll get it going.

I really like to do it with a PowerPoint. If I get a PowerPoint, I could do it that way, but I don't have it yet for projector.

Yes? Right. Well, no,

I don't know if it's wrong or not. It depends on what you mean by it and does the text allow that. As you know, what

I'll do is I'll read a text. It reminds me, and I'll jump over here in the immediate context, but there's a relationship.

Sometimes I just go off. Destruction of Jerusalem in AD, it could be worth a discussion because on this mountain or in Jerusalem.

It could be a precursor to a discussion of the destruction of Jerusalem. Absolutely.

There's so many things we could talk about all the time. Uh -huh.

Right. Right. Jesus didn't return in 70 in the armies.

That's clear. And the reputation for that is in Acts 1 -9 -11, where the angels prophesy he'll return in the same way you want to go up into the sky.

I don't care what preachers say. They're wrong. They don't interpret that just for what it says, period. It's just ridiculous.

But that tangent caused me to forget what you asked. What did you ask? Dang it. Oh, when's it going to happen?

Yeah. Right. Well, see, 200 million men that comes up the dried -up

Euphrates River. The only nation that can supply that so far is China. And there's a dam on the

Euphrates River that can divert the river to another direction if need be. I understand that's the case.

Magog, some think, is Moscow or Russia. I forget how the connection is. Long time since we've seen that.

North and the other ones from the east and all nations, et cetera, gathered against Israel.

Right. Now, it does say what bothers me. It says all the nations. Now, all means what it means in context.

I can show you how all means every individual and all does not mean every individual, just depending. As it says, you know, all the world was tacked, right, although census over the whole world.

No, it wasn't. I mean, the aborigines in Australia didn't have them. So sometimes there's an exaggeration.

But nevertheless, if it's literal all, then that would mean America has turned its back on Israel. That bothers me.

It scares me. But maybe it won't be the case. I don't know. But nevertheless, generally understand in a premillennial view, you have this period that works like this.

I'm not an expert in this. It's been a while since I've studied this kind of stuff. I don't study eschatology very much.

People are really interested in it every now and then. So here it goes. So we have the cross.

And then we have the seven years here. And then we have the 1 ,000 years here.

And then new heavens and new earth. All right.

So this is generally the premillennial view, the most dominant view in America. And I understand the reason is because the

Schofield Reference Bible in the early 1900s taught it. And it was disseminated. People believe it. And I just don't think it holds any water.

But nevertheless, so when does the 1 ,000 years?

All right. So this is what I believe, the aumil without a literal in years.

It's a figurative. I'll talk about when we do this. So where would that occur here? Roughly in this period of time.

That's what a lot of aumilinalists have held generally towards the end. That Satan was bound here,

Matthew 12, 22 through 32, at the time of Christ. And then

I've had one aumilinalist tell me that he thought World War I was the fingerprints of Satan being released.

As he gathers the nations toward each other. You think about that. 2 ,000 years ago, such a concept would make no sense.

What if we were talking about we know what we know. We're back there 2 ,000 years ago talking to somebody, to an interpreter. Oh, yeah.

All the world, the world's globe, it takes a couple of days to get them. Nations all over.

And we're all going to be at war with each other. We're going to be able to communicate and get to each side of the world within a day.

They go, you're crazy. No concept. This idea, it only makes sense in modern times.

Nations against nations, the whole world, things like that. Right. Really?

Switzerland. Right. Right. Wow.

Right. Islam is responsible for a large percentage of them.

Got a question? Another one? Questions are piling up. If you abide,

John 15, you'll remain. Now, the vine has different eschatological values to it and different representations.

It can be understood what the vine is. But he who abides will have eternal life.

You abide because God is in you, abiding in you. I would say that my voice is starting to go, the abiding is because God's in you.

Now, some people say, well, yeah, but it says if you don't abide, then you cut off, which means you lose your salvation.

It doesn't say you lose your salvation. First John 2, 19, they went out from us because they never were of us. If they had been of us, they would have remained.

It says clearly they would have remained. So you can't lose your salvation. So that abiding there can't mean that you're able to forfeit your salvation with God.

What I understand what it means is that those who don't abide were never true Christians to begin with.

That's how I understand the rest of the scripture. You had a question? Yeah. Yeah.

I don't know where that is in the text. Ezekiel. It's going to happen. The question is, is it literal or is it symbolic?

So the premillennialist, yeah, it's really kind of interesting language, and it seems to be metaphoric.

It's representing things. But some will say in the premillennial view that this is going to happen at some point here.

I've heard that. And then some say at here. Okay. I've heard different views.

I'm just telling you what I've heard. I think what it is talking about is here in the new heavens, new earth, and that we're going to have complete peace and things like that.

That's what I think. Seven years would also be about right about there.

Yeah. Maybe a day over there, but seven years, even a seven -year period of the revelation of the

Christ. So there are a lot of premillennialists who take umbrage with that. Yes.

I don't know. But let me say this, that I believe that the new heavens and new earth are necessary because of the effect of sin in the world.

When Adam, who represented mankind and the world, when he sinned and entered the world and our hearts, and so decay, entropy entered the universe as well as our hearts, we'd have new bodies, and I think the universe is going to be remade.

Something like that's going to happen. I don't know how it's going to work, but I believe some of that effect is going to.

Yes. Predestination. Old Testament.

You can find where I heard you, right?

Ideas of the doctrine of predestination taught. They're talking about predestination to election or predestination for God using salvation versus.

I find atonement, limited atonement verse in the Old Testament, predestination, election, ABIJ53. I don't know.

It's a good question. I don't know if I could think of any top of my head. I'm thinking part of Joseph, who was sold into slavery and chosen for that specifically.

And then there was Abraham, who was specifically chosen by God out of the Ur of the Chaldees, and so he was elected and chosen for that purpose, and then he was justified by Faith Romans 4 -5.

So that makes no sense.

I'm going to repeat it so that they can hear that you're saying that you don't make sense, but what you're hearing him say doesn't make any sense.

In that some Arminians will say predestination can be of individuals and impartial of others who then make their free will choices to believe in God.

That doesn't work biblically. It doesn't work like that because God is not a

Molinist. God doesn't believe in middle knowledge, despite what a lot of middle knowledge will affirm.

God does not know what different people will do under different circumstances by extrapolation or by means and then chooses what will occur based on what he knows they will choose.

Then that becomes reactionary, and it implies God had to learn. They would say, no, it doesn't, but there's some logic there.

Another question? A long question. I guess people like doing this.

Oh, good. Paul corrected Peter, and so how do we know that Peter and others are inspired? Paul himself was corrected by Jesus.

He knocked him off the horse. So then people might say, well, wait a minute. So Jesus did this then, and then

Paul became inspired. Okay, true. But it doesn't mean that everything

Peter said and did was inspired. What does inspiration mean? That's the question. Inspiration means that it's

God -breathed. Can it be inspired? I'll do a little play on words.

Can it be inspired with what Satan speaks? Now, that's a tricky question because in Matthew 4, the very words of Satan are recorded.

Are they inspired? It depends on how you mean inspired. Are they inspired that they came from God? No, but the recording of it came from God.

So the recording of those words is inspired, means it's God -breathed. So we get to Peter made mistakes, and Paul had to correct them.

And Paul had to correct them. It means that anything else that Peter said is now suspect.

It means that the disciples themselves, the apostles themselves had to learn.

They learned. They didn't have all instant knowledge. And what it also means, inspiration means that when it came time for them to write inspired words, pen to paper, when that occurred, that's when they were inspired by the

Holy Spirit. Now, how do we know that they were inspired? It's a debatable issue, but we generally know that they're inspired, basically, out of John 10 .7.

My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me. We know the voice of God.

So the church through history has recognized the voice of God through the prophets, through the apostles who've written that word, and the church, through God's sovereignty and the healing of the spirit within the church people, has said

Peter's epistle is inspired. Paul's epistle is inspired. Hebrews, who don't know exactly who wrote it, is inspired.

Mark, who was not a disciple, but Immanuensis, as well as Luke, they were inspired as well.

So that's recognized. I hope that answers that. Yeah? Karma schools?

Yeah. Love identity?

Oh, love identity, how does that work with the hypothetic union? All right, let's define terms.

Love identity is the first of logic, classical logic, which says something is what it is.

Okay? Something is what it is, it's not what it's not. It just is what it is, we recognize it.

Chalk, sir, shoe, glasses, so we recognize that.

Now, in the hypostatic union, that's the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures, right?

So the two distinct natures, two natures, all right, are

God and man, all right? So that's a nature.

So the nature, this statement is true for this. The statement is true for this.

There's a human nature, a divine nature. The natures aren't combined into something new, monophysitism.

But what it is is that we understand, yeah, that is nature, it is a nature.

It is what it is. It's not the divine nature, it's not the human nature. The human nature is not the divine nature.

The divine nature, the human nature is the human. Two distinct natures, hypostatic union.

Answer it? Okay, then we get into communicatio idiomatum, which is how they relate to each other, kind of.

Yes, sir. Nestorianism?

Okay, so Nestorianism, all right, I'll just do this for short.

Nestorianism, okay. What it says is in the one person of Christ are two natures, okay?

Two natures, all right? There's the divine nature and the human nature.

I'm going to get a little complicated here. There's a doctrine called diathletism, from the

Greek thaleo, which means to will or to wish. Di means to.

So Jesus, having two natures, has two wills. This is

Orthodox theology. In that there's a will involved in the human nature, there's a will involved in the divine nature.

Because the word is a person, and the human essence is a person.

Hence two wills. Monothelitism, that's real, but diathletism. All right, however, however, now

I'm going to introduce communicatio idiomatum. Okay, communication of the property, okay, which is communicatio idiomatum,

Latin for communication of properties. Now, divine nature and a human nature.

So the divine nature has properties and the human nature has properties. But there's one person. So the attributes of divinity are ascribed to the one person, and the attributes of humanity are ascribed to the one person.

So Jesus would say, Jesus is one person, not two persons. And that's what

Nestorianism would say. Okay, we'll get to that. So the one person would say, I'm hungry,

I'm thirsty, I'm tired. The one person would say, I, the same I, all right.

I am hungry. I am thirsty. I am tired. I know all things. I know your heart.

You know, things like this. So the one person, I, said attributes of divinity as well as humanity.

Nestorianism is in error because what Nestorianism implies is two persons.

There's the person of the divine, the person of the human. And it denies the true nature of our nation in the hypostatic union.

So this is what Nestorianism is basically known to be. Having two wills is orthodox theology.

A will divine, a will to heal, it's called diatheletism. But in the manifestation of the hypostatic union where Jesus is one person, we only have one will that's expressed and understood.

How that works, I don't know. Okay. But this doctrine here, the communicatio mater, or the communication of properties, answers a question, a very important question a lot of Christians don't even know exists.

If Jesus is both divine and human, which nature died on the cross? The human nature. If that's the case, then how is the sacrifice of divine value?

If only the human nature died. Well, the sacrifice has to be a divine value.

The answer is found in the communicatio mater. You can go on CARM and read about this. Communication of the properties, right?

Well, person, the one person died on the cross who claimed human attributes and divine attributes.

The one person died on the cross, hence the sacrifice of divine value. Furthermore, what's really important is that we perceive the divine through the human.

I'm just throwing a little bit of stuff in there. We perceive the divine through the human. If you were to turn back and you were to watch

Jesus walking down a road, like he doesn't know we're spying on him from behind a bush, and we're watching him walk down the road, and then we watch him walk out on the water, we are seeing actual divinity manifested through the humanity.

Because as I say to people, what is divine? What is divinity like? It's blue.

It's mid -shaped. No, it's like a cylinder that's gaseous with radios coming out of it.

What is divinity any more than what is humanity? What is the essence of humanity? Can you put the essence of humanity in a jar?

It's something else. It's something different. So God is other, completely other than us.

We say in theology he's wholly other, W -H -O -L -L -Y, wholly different, wholly other than us.

The only way for us to experience him is for him to reveal himself to us. He did that in the word.

He does it in creation. He does it in the person of Jesus Christ. Now, if we were to see

Jesus walking, we would see divinity. Excuse me. We would not be seeing divinity.

We'd be seeing a human body. When you see me, do you see humanity? No. You see the properties of humanity.

You see my profound ability to be irritating, obnoxious, obstreperous, and things like that.

You see me to be able to be rational, to love, to hate. You see the properties of humanity.

And so properties emanate out of an essence. So if Jesus has divine properties, he has divine essence.

If he has human properties, he has human essence. So we can only perceive properties, not the essence.

So this table has hard, flat, we're seeing properties of it, has mass, occupies space.

But the essence of painlessness, we won't get into all that. So, with Jesus, we see the divine through the human.

We see the properties of humanity manifested through the human. Hence, he would walk on water, still, to the storm, and it would obey.

Your sins are forgiven, etc. So that's what that is. But anyway, back to your question. The story would say that essentially there's two persons in one body.

Where hypostatic union says one person with two natures. And in historianism, it's basically two natures and two persons.

Can the two wills will different things? In Christ, Luke 22, 40, not my will, but your will be done.

Notice my will, a single will. In diathletism, we have a manifestation as one single will, nevertheless.

But I've already went over it earlier in John 6, 28, 29. No, John 8, 28, 29.

That's interesting. John 8, 28, 29, it says he doesn't want to do his will, different wording.

He always does the will of the Father, does what's pleasing to him. So, could the human will and the divine will be at odds with each other in the person of Christ?

I don't think so. But there's not enough information to be able to say definitively.

But I would tend to say they're probably identical in everything because it's like saying could

Jesus have sinned? No. Why? Attributes of holiness or attributes of the person, he could not have sinned.

Holiness can't sin. So, but yet he could be tempted. But temptation is different because, you know, people can tempt me to come watch sports.

We're tempting you to watch sports, Matt. You're boring me.

I'm not tempted, okay? But they said, hey, you want to take the laptop apart instead of talk to your wife about whatever?

Oh, now I'm tempted. Okay. That sounds like fun. Okay. So, I can be tempted without being tempted, and I can be tempted and un -tempted.

So, it's a different sense. So, in Psalm 104, I think it is, I think it's Psalm 104. They tempted in the wilderness, but God can't be tempted.

They offered the temptation. And so, Jesus intrinsically can't be tempted by sin because he has a quality of holiness.

But they can offer a temptation and say, see, we tempted him, but he's not tempted.

We tempted him, but he's not tempted internally. Make sense? In Matthew 4?

When it happened in Matthew 4, Satan tried to offer Jesus a way to tempt

God, and a different kind of a way to challenge God. And he says no. And he answered with Scripture.

Right. Which is what we should do. Which is why memorize Scripture, memorize stuff so you can quote it.

Another question from anybody? Are they done? They're getting started.

A hundred comments already. Well, if they pay me a lot of money, maybe we can bump those up.

Or chuck a few cookies. Okay. Real fast? Sure. Different doctrines.

Mention heresies. Oh, the heresy to do good stuff.

Yeah. Okay. Knew a pastor.

Still know a pastor. The situation earlier, I won't say who, what, when, where, but he thought it would be okay to listen to a particular heretical on TV and use his material in the church.

Because the material was excellent. But that guy denied the

Trinity. Won this guy. But this stuff is incredibly good.

And it was. A lot of good stuff. A lot of wisdom. And I said, I wouldn't use it.

Why? We're not discussing the issue of the Trinity anywhere. I said, but what you're doing is, is you're saying to your congregation members, this guy's worthy of teaching you.

Go look him up on the road and find out he denies the Trinity. You're going to wound them inadvertently.

So what I say, for example, Joy Hirons. She's got a lot of good things to say. She said that if you don't believe that Jesus went to hell, et cetera, and finished atonement there, basically, you can't be truly saved.

That's heresy. She said she doesn't sin anymore. Spend five minutes with me. I can cure that.

Trust me. I'm pretty good at that kind of stuff. And she said other things. She has revelation knowledge from God. And that Jesus stopped being the son of God when he died.

That he was born again. I mean, these are all heresies. So millions of people might listen to her, right?

She's got all these great things to say. 99 .9 % is great, right? And she's denying essential doctrines of the faith.

Why listen to her? The fact that she succeeds is a revelation of how sick our church is.

Our church is sick. It's anemic. It's weak. It's narrow -minded.

It's blind. It doesn't know what the truth is. She should never be a success.

The elders of her church should have rebuked her long ago.

But they don't have the huevos to do it. Because these so -to -speak men around her don't have what it takes to really do their job properly and rebuke her for her false teachings.

Yeah. I'm saying it's right. Someone's got to. Trust me.

Reverend Slick. Big churches.

Celebrity pastor churches, yeah. Do a guest speak in the pulpit on Sunday morning?

I mean, a woman guest speak on the pulpit on Sunday morning? See? She's teaching authority on a

Sunday morning. People say, well, what if it's just a woman coming in and teaching the congregation something she's learned? See, it's a pulpit.

On a Sunday morning, when the church gathers for the preaching and teaching of the word, which is by definition an authoritative position, she's in there, they've blown it.

Shouldn't happen. Why? Women are not to be pastors and elders. 1

Timothy 2, 12, and 13, Titus 5 -7, 1

Timothy 3, 1 -6. And also, you can find support for women pastors in the book of Deuterectomy.

Okay. They want me to preach the gospel?

Oh. That's the best request ever. All right.

Gospel is this. God is holy, God is righteous, and God is pure.

And everything he does, everything he says is always right. And we are touched by sin, and nothing we do is right.

Therefore, we can never earn his presence. We can never earn or have that right to be in his presence.

God gave us the law in the Old Testament, don't lie, don't steal. That's a reflection of his character.

Jesus says in Matthew 12 -34, out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

God spoke, let there be light. And it was light. God spoke and said, don't lie, don't commit adultery.

This is his character, his essence, which is pure. Holy, 1 Peter 1 -16. But the law is a reflection of the character of God.

And law gives the word law. No law is a law without a punishment. Because God does not punish the sinner, the lawbreaker, 1

John 3 -4, sinners breaking the law of God. God would be approving of unholiness, which he can't do.

So he's righteous, so he must punish the one who breaks that law. But the standard is himself, not our standard.

The standard is God's perfection. Be holy for I am holy, 1 Peter 1 -16. So we're obligated, as he reveals in the

Old Testament, to keep the whole law, Deuteronomy 27 -26. Paul reiterates that in Galatians 3 -10.

We can't keep that law. Therefore, Paul wrote in Galatians 24, that law is a tutor that leads us to Christ, that we might be saved by grace.

In other words, we cannot do anything in any way enough to earn our place with God.

We are sinners in all that we are, our heart, our soul, our minds. Our heart is desperately wicked and deceitful,

Jeremiah 17. We don't do any good, Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12. We're slaves to sin,

Romans 6, 14 -20. We're by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2 -3.

Now, because of our enslavement to sin and our enmity with God, Ephesians 2 -15,

God has to intervene. He's got to become one of us to fulfill the laws, requirements that we cannot do.

So Jesus, made within the angels, Hebrews 2 -9, made under the law of Galatians 4 -4, never sinned, 1

Peter 2 -22. And he bore our sin in his body on the cross, 1 Peter 2 -24. He died with them and he rose from the dead.

Three days later, Corinthians 15 -14. And he's our substitute, Isaiah 53 -4 -6.

What we do to have that is put our faith and our trust in what

Jesus did. We're justified by Romans 5 -1. Works of the law, Romans 28.

When we trust in Christ, the righteousness of God himself is imputed to us, Philippians 3 -9.

We have a righteousness that's not our own. We live forever, we're indwelt by God. John 14 -23.

All right, I said it this way, the technical way with all kinds of stuff. Let me break it in a simpler way, the gospel.

We're all sinners, we've all offended God, and he's going to judge us because he's holy and he's righteous.

The only way to escape that judgment is to lean on, depend on what he has done for us.

Without trusting what he's done, we're left with nothing except our own sin. If you want to be saved from the righteous judgment of God, and you want to spend eternity with him, with your sins forgiven, then you need to trust

Jesus Christ, God in flesh, who bore your sin in his body on the cross and died with it and rose from the dead.

And the only thing you've got to do is trust him, accept it, receive it by faith.

But I'll warn you, if you do, you better count the cost. I think it's

Luke 18 -28, I'm not sure. It says, count the cost. Jesus will take you as you are, but he'll never abuse you as you are.

He'll cleanse you, he'll work with you. So the gospel is the good news. We don't have to keep the law to please

God and be with him. And we leave his flesh by faith.

And his law -keeping is counted as our law -keeping. And we're seen as holy before God.

We can enter heaven without judgment. That's the gospel. Yes. If Jesus says, pray expecting, then why else should we pray expecting?

Because if he doesn't do that, then do that. Taking off? See you. See you guys.

So we should pray with expectation. 1 John 5 -13 says we're to pray according to the will of God.

And if he hears us, it's within his will. So we should be expecting that God hears us and answers us.

But we also must be expecting that God's wisdom will trump our wisdom and ours. And that we need to trust him and expect that he will answer our prayers.

And he will answer yes, no, or wait. And that's how it is. But, yeah, pray trusting in him.

I like to call it faithing. A continued attitude of having faith and trust in God.

And he'll answer. Sometimes the answer is no. And sometimes yes.

As I get older, I look back and I'm glad that so many of my prayers were with no.

Next question. A couple of good books to read.

Romans. Hebrews is good. That's two right there. For what purpose?

Okay. If you want devotional stuff.

I don't do any devotional stuff. Too many things. Apologetics.

I know a lot about because that's what I focus on. Scaling the Secular City. I'd recommend that.

I think it's just a fantastic book. I would get Wayne Grudem's Christmatic Theology. I would also get

George Mueller's autobiography.

George Mueller was the orphan king, a man of great prayer. You can also get Pursuit of Godliness and Pursuit of Holiness.

These are more devotionally minded. I forgot his name. Not Tozer.

Pursuit of Holiness, not by pain. What? No. Someone will type it in because they'll know.

I've read them. They're very good. They're very good. Pursuit of Godliness, Pursuit of Holiness. These have been a long time since I've read them.

I can't quite recall. It's by the same author. Those are good as well. Also, Anne Murray, Issues on Prayer are good.

I don't like reading that because it makes me feel bad because I don't do a good job praying. Maybe he just doesn't want humility.

Hey, what do you mean? Jerry Bridges, that's it.

Pursuit of Holiness, Pursuit of Godliness. Google is great. Thank you very much. Next question.

Let's do a few more. If you like this, in fact, if you like me doing this and you want to just open it up and I can just answer questions,

I'll do it. It's one of the things I want to do is start reaching out to another audience.

If you like it, give me emails or thumbs up here or whatever it is, what you'd like to see. Take it off, man.

God bless. We'll see you. Okay. Most difficult scripture for Calvinists?

I can't think of any. In all seriousness, I can't.

Oh, yeah, yeah. Actually, 15, Divining Branches, that's a little bit difficult for Calvinists because you have to kind of interpret it.

You have other scriptures. It's a bit of a challenge, yeah. Well, James 5, 16, that's not a problem.

He's righteous because he's already been predestined to be righteous by the imputed righteousness of Christ. That's easy.

2 Peter 2, 1, that's easy. Let's see. Deuteronomy, what is it, 32, 6,

I think. Now, 2 Peter 2, 1 says deny the Lord who bought them, right?

That's not a problem. Because 1 and 2 Peter are full of Old Testament citations.

Peter is alluding to the Old Testament all over the place. I think it's in Deuteronomy 32, 6.

Let me see. It's been a long time since I had to quote that. So let me see if I can get that right. Because of what it says in that verse.

Now, come on. Get in here. Okay. And because, remember, he's in the Old Testament a lot.

And yes. I was right. How about that? Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and unwise people?

God's talking to the Israelites after he had freed them from bondage in Egypt.

Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is not he your father who has bought you?

He has made you and established you. The days of all considered the years of all generations. So I'm not saying this is the case.

But since Peter, and I have an article written on this on my website called Calvinistcorner .com.

Calvinistcorner .com. You can go there. Not the Calvinist Corner. It's Calvinistcorner .com. And towards the bottom of that, there's a denying the

Lord of Bath, Peter 2, 1. And I go in there and give that. And I actually count how many times

Peter cites the Old Testament. So since Peter is at a lot in 1 and 2

Peter, he's obviously got his mind in the Old Testament. Now, since the

Israelites were bought by God, but not all of them were saved, could it be? That's the question that Peter's referring to in the same sense.

There's no Old Testament references all over the place. And that's how I analyze that. To me, that's not a problem. And if it's not that, he could be bought.

This brings destruction. It never says they lose their salvation. Even Christians who rebelled against God can be taken out, delivered.

2 Corinthians 5, 5. 2 Corinthians 5, 5. Destroy his body so his soul will be saved on the day of judgment.

Yep. God intervened. Then there's a verse about blotted out.

There are some verses that are a little bit more difficult for Calvinists to answer, but then there's some verses that are really hard for the

Armenians to answer. Colossians 2, 14. Colossians 2, 14. Yeah.

Yeah, it is. Okay, another question. Well, that's a good question.

I've never been asked that question. Did God love demons before they fell? Dependent to find demon.

Okay. So one theory about what demons are deals with Genesis chapter 6, where the sons of God saw that the ladies, the daughters of men were fair unto them and had children.

And that offspring Nephilim. The flood came because in Genesis 6, 9 it says, no, it was in all his generations, all his lineage.

So some people think that the flood killed the Nephilim and the demons are those released spirits.

If that's the definition that we would go by, then God would never have loved them. It couldn't have been possible.

But then again, what about the angelic realm that were going to fall?

Now can Timothy 5, 21 talks about elect angels. So I could say that God loved them in the sense of saving them by election, preventing them from fall.

So they couldn't be redeemed because there's no redeemer for them before the foundation of the world. Maybe there's a sense in which they did those say do that.

He created end up falling. I don't know. Good question. Gentiles.

And the Gentiles are prophesied in Genesis 12, three and you, all the nations shall be blessed.

Talk about all the nations and Gentile nations. Talk to Abraham and that's quoted by Paul in Galatians 3, 10, calling it the gospel.

Well, the other shape I have, the Gentiles. Somewhat.

They're doing it to come. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to ask them a question. Then we'll wrap it up after this, because it's nine 30 here and people got to go to work and stuff in the morning.

But if you guys done this like this, If you look me doing this and you want me to continue, or maybe even just set up a time where we just do this.

It's a camera, me and Ben questions. I'll just answer the questions. Then let me know.

I don't know how many people are watching. I don't know how many people might be interested, but I want to find out. Four are watching.

Oh, get out of here. It's really the feedback.

You're going to have to make decisions of what direction I'll go and how much energy I'll put into continuing particular direction.

But what I do want to do is more video work and try and reach out and broader area.

And I think this is a good way to do so. I want feedback. Okay. All right.

I guess we're done then. God bless. Until next week, we're going to do thing Bible study the first hour that we do

Q and a afterwards. And we'll see on Tuesday nights. I do a Patreon thing. Another thing.

We'll get that going to do a different kind of stuff there. Yeah. Explain all that.

Should we do this or Patreon or what? Maybe we do both or either. I don't know. I'm going to figure it out. Turn it off. It's done.

So, yeah, it filled up.