Matt Slick Bible Study - Christology & Atonement

Here we go, all right, cookies and stuff, we got more, we got more in there, we got more in there, that's all right, all right, so let me see,

Charlie just, yeah, I guess you can hear me, text me if there's any problem, I'll be looking at the phone, got audio down for sure, good, all right, so let's pray, we're gonna jump in, we're gonna do

Christology and it's gonna tie into Soteriology and they're gonna interrelate, we're gonna go slowly through who

Christ is, we're gonna go through various errors and some stuff, we're gonna relate stuff and go into soul sleep, atonement, probably all related, okay, all right, let's pray,

Lord Jesus we thank you for your grace and thank you Lord for your kindness, I thank you for becoming one of us, that you would then shed your blood for us to save us by the grace that comes from you, thanks for granting us belief, thanks for granting us repentance and thanks for the great love that you have shown and I just hope

Lord that by your grace that we'll be able to represent you truthfully from the word of God, I ask for your mercy on this and that you will be glorified in it and that your people would be edified, so Jesus we thank you, we look to you and we ask this in your precious name, all right, okay,

Christology, now, so we went over the doctrine of the Trinity and the Trinity is one God and three simultaneous eternal distinct persons, right, the word which is the second person of the

Trinity, we call the son, is eternal and then in the incarnation through the virgin birth which is prophesied

Isaiah 714, that the virgin will bear a son 9 -6, and so Jesus is the one who has two distinct natures, now it's really important for us to understand

Jesus came into existence 2 ,000 years ago, Jesus is not eternal, now some who hear this may say that's heresy, hear me out, because Jesus has two distinct natures, it's called the hypostatic union, the eternal word in the

Trinity, the word has always existed and the word became flesh and became unified or in union with a human nature and this union began 2 ,000 years ago, this union we call a person of Jesus, the person of Jesus has two distinct natures, so that union of two distinct natures in the one person of Christ began 2 ,000 years ago, you with me, so the divine nature is eternal, but the human nature is not, so in the union of the two natures called the hypostatic union, that's what we call the person of Jesus, now

Jesus will forever be this way, we'll probably get into why he was baptized, we'll probably get into that, because it relates to his humanity forever, so what we have to understand is that the person of Christ is one person with two distinct natures, this is very critical, it's very critical, it's very critical, it's very important, everybody's got to understand this, you got to keep this understood, that Jesus is one person with two natures, now you may hear me say this so many times, but we got it, it's critically important to understand this, one person with two distinct natures, okay,

Charlie, if this is too loud, I can move it down, I think we talked about that, let me move it down, text me on my phone to tell me if it's good at this height, okay, right there, that's better, so there are errors concerning the person of Christ, monophysitism,

Nestorianism, Eutychianism, we're going to get into, we'll get into the major ones, monophysitism is the idea that Jesus as one person has one nature, mono, one, phis, from the physical, from the form, monophysitism, that Jesus is one person with one nature, a kind of a combination of the divine and the human nature that became the, sounds good, okay, that became

Jesus, but that would be damnable heresy, the reason it's damnable heresy, because it denies who

Christ really is, Christ is one person with two distinct natures, always two distinct natures, if we say he's one nature, then he's the divine nature and the human nature that combined into a new third thing, there would be a divine nature, there'd be a human nature, and then there would be a divine human hybrid nature thing that became an actuality, which is neither divine or human, but a new third thing, and so that would be an, would invalidate the nature of the atoning sacrifice, and we'll get into some of this stuff later,

Eutychianism is the error concerning Christ, that the two natures are distinct, but they're so interspersed, they're so intertwined, you can't tell them apart, but that's not true,

Jesus says I'm thirsty, Jesus said I'll be with you always, even at the end of the earth, so there is a distinction between his natures, and we have to be able to recognize that distinction, because Eutychianism can be misunderstood in some degrees with monophysitism, it can be, but it doesn't have to be, it just depends on how far they go,

Nestorianism would say, basically say this, that within the one person of, within the physical body of Christ are two persons, a divine person and a human person, a divine person and a human person, and then the two are in the one body, now that is a problem, because then you don't have the one person dying on the cross, you only have the human nature dying on the cross, we'll get into this later, because if it's

Nestorianism is true, and there's a divine person, not nature, but person, it'd be a human nature plus a person, a divine nature as a person, that would mean only the human person died, but if that's the case, it's not a divine sacrifice, we have to have one person with two natures, now there's an error called monothelitism, the

Greek thaleo, which is to will, to have a will, monothelitism is one will, and dithelitism is two wills, so does

Jesus have one will, or does he have two wills, now before you try and answer the question, by definition a person has a will, and by definition if he's human in human nature, he's gonna have to have a will, and if he's divine, he's gonna have to have a will, so the orthodox position is called dithelitism, concerning Christ, that within his two natures, there are two wills, but the two wills are perceived as one,

I don't know how all that works, but this is what the theologians for centuries have come up with, and it makes sense,

I've thought about it over the years ago, yeah that makes sense, because if it's just one will, then how can you have true natures, the attributes of both natures existing, because you know

I'm a human, I have a will, and God has a will, so we have to have two wills, but they're manifested as a single person, through the human, now we cannot perceive divinity, yes and no, we might be able to perceive divinity, but we wouldn't recognize it as being divine, what if God's essence were to somehow manifest in this room, now aside from the incredible glory of his majesty, we're all face down on the ground, if he were to just take a kabillionth of a kabillionth of a sliver of his glory, or his essence and pass it by, we look at what is that, as a cloud, or is that a whiffle of dust, what is it, and if it was his divine nature, how would we recognize it, we can't necessarily recognize it,

I believe there's a way we can, a way we can't, but the idea is we wouldn't really be able to recognize it, unless something occurs to us, to inform us, that that's what's happening, and I believe that in the presence of God, his divinity is so great, his awesomeness is so great, that we will know, but the idea here is that, trying to get at, is that we perceive the divine through the human, in the person of Christ, we perceive the divine through the human, so if we were to all transfer it back in time, and in an invisible bubble, that we could float around and watch them all, they didn't know we were here,

Jesus of course would, and we were there, we would know that that was Jesus, God in flesh, with two distinct natures, but what we would see is a man sweating, a man saying, excuse me,

I need to go to the bathroom, and a man going, I'm beat, I'm just so tired,

I gotta go to sleep, we would see that, we would see maybe he got BO, you know, out there, who knows, we would see all of that with it, with what his nature, his true humanity really is, he'd have to go to the bathroom, he'd have to eat, he'd get fatigued, okay, all of this would be part of his human nature, but where's the divinity?

We don't perceive the divinity until we see him walk on the water, oh, so now we're perceiving the divine attributes, divine qualities through the human, we see him physically as a man walk on water, so now we're perceiving the actions and the nature of divinity through the actions and nature of the humanity, he would say to the storm, peace, be still, and it obeys, so now we are perceiving with our eyes and hearing with our ears him say, peace, be still, and so now we're again in human form, we are perceiving the divine nature and the divine attributes, so the divinity of Christ is expressed through humanity, not something many people think about very much, but it's true, the divinity of Christ is expressed through the humanity, that's how we perceive, and this makes sense, because if we were to go outside and find a hill of ants, and we started talking to the ants, they don't know anything, we would have to lower ourselves down to their standard in order to communicate, right, however level ants communicate, the difference, the distance between us and the ants is not as great as between God and us, but we're made in his image, and we have what's called communicable attributes, we've talked about this before,

I believe, right, all right, and so what God has done is condescended, he's become one of us, he's lowered himself to our level, so Philippians 2, 5 through 8, says, have this attitude in yourselves, which also was in Christ Jesus, who although he was existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God anything to be grasped, but he humbled himself to the point of death, even death on a cross, so that the name of Christ, all that was exalted, okay, so he emptied himself, now the word empty there is kenosis in the

Greek, there's an error that has come up out of that word, where it says he emptied himself, and some people say, well he emptied himself of his divine attributes, not so, because that would violate the hypothetic union, because if he's one person in two distinct natures, it is not possible that he would lessen his divinity, because divinity is what it is, and his attributes are manifested out of his nature, so if he has a divine nature, he's going to have divine attributes, if the attributes are gone, it's because the nature is gone, so we can't say he divested himself of his attributes, because that would be violating his nature, that's wrong, so that's what's called the kenotic theory, and it's an error, but he humbled himself, now when people ask me, well what happened in the incarnation,

I say, well I'm not exactly sure, the Bible doesn't tell us, but I just like to say, it's my wording as I say, he cooperated with the limitations of being a man, what does that mean,

I don't know, so it's a nice escape, I guess I'm not sure what it is I mean, but that's what

I'm going to say, because we know that he's made for a little while lower than the angels, Hebrews 2 .9,

and he's made under the law, Galatians 4 .4, now these two verses are really important, made under the law,

Galatians 4 .4, and lower than the angels, Hebrews 2 .9, in John 14 .28,

Jesus says, the father is greater than I, well wait a minute, says the cultist, Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphian, if he's

God, then why is it that he would say the father is greater than he, because if he's

God, then he should know that he's equal to God, well he does say in John 5 .20

-23, he says you must honor the son even as you honor the father, he says only worship

God, and I think it's Matthew 4 .10, yet he receives worship in Matthew 2 .2, 2 .11,

14 .33, oh man, 2 .2,

2 .11, 14 .33, 25 .8, 25 .9, and he's worshiped in Hebrews 1 .6,

and so Jesus receives worship willingly, and he's called

God by Thomas in John 20 .28, after the resurrection when he appeared to Thomas, and Thomas says, like they say in the

Greek, Hakurios mou kaihoteos mou, the Lord of me and the God of me, he says this, so anyway, back to this, so when

Jesus emptied himself, he's cooperating with the limitations of being a man, and it was under the law, now

Luke 2 .52 says that he grew in wisdom and stature, because he was made for a little while within the angels, cooperating with the limitations of being a man, and he grew in wisdom and stature, now that's an interesting thing,

I could get into the possibilities of how that could work, because God by nature has ominous sapience, which is all wisdom, so how could he grow in wisdom?

There would have to be a cooperation, a limitation at some form there, and I'm not gonna get into that too much, but it could be just metaphoric too, an exaggeration, he's growing as a human child, he's growing in this, and the attributes of his divinity are being more manifested, not that they were gone, but they were more manifested as he grew older, that's certainly another possibility, so there's ways of looking at it when it's not a problem, but nevertheless, so under the law, he would have someone he would call

God, under the law, because he had to believe, he had to work under that law, and the law says in Deuteronomy 6 .5,

you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, so he's under the law, so therefore he's obligated to fulfill that law, which is what he said it came to do, fulfill the law and the prophets, and that's

Matthew 5 .17 -18, so he came there to do that, and he would have to have someone he would worship, someone he would call

God, which is why in the high priestly prayer of John 17, he prayed to the

Father, and he says, you are the only true God, now some will say, well, if he's the only true God, that means

Jesus isn't truly God, but he's saying this because he's under the law, made Lord and the angels, and he's given reverence and honor to God, and we know that Jesus is

God because of what he says, what Thomas says, you know, Lord of me and the God of me, my

Lord and my God, and Jesus never corrects him, and he's called God in John 1, 1 and verse 14, the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word was

God, the word became flesh, dwelt among us, Colossians 2, 9, for in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form, so Jesus is the one who is the

God -man, one person with two distinct simultaneous natures, the divine nature and the human nature, we've talked about this before, we're gonna get into the doctrine called the

Communicatio Idiomatum, this is another very important doctrine, is there someone at the door?

Oh, okay, no problem, and so the Communicatio Idiomatum, the communication of the properties, remember, you gotta go over these doctrines many times, different ways, so you get them, so Jesus is one person with a divine nature and a human nature, and the attributes of divinity are ascribed to the person, and the attributes of humanity are ascribed to the person, remember, earlier

I said we perceive the divine through the human, so Jesus on the cross, we see the divine one on the cross, whose attributes of both natures are ascribed to him, he said

I'm thirsty, on the cross, right, I'm thirsty, I forgot what verse, I'm thirsty, but we also know he said things like I'm tired, you know,

I need to go rest and ask the disciples to pray and all this stuff in the garden, and he had to eat, he went to the ape with them, but he also said

I'll be with you always, even to the end of the earth, et cetera, that's Matthew 28, 20,

I believe, or 20, yeah, 20, and so what he's doing is claiming the attributes of divinity as well as humanity, and by claiming the attributes of divinity and humanity, when he said

I am thirsty, I will be with you always, he's saying the I, which is the person, has divine attribution, and therefore the divine person represented in humanity died on the cross, and therefore the cross is a divine value.

Now this is important because when we sin, we sin against God, so let's,

I'm gonna use Joe here as an example, so I go over to Joe's house, and I've used this, I've said this before, maybe you guys remember it,

I go over to Joe's house, Anik and I, my wife and I do, oh, Anik's sick, that's why she's upstairs, she's not here, she's upstairs sick,

I've got a slight fever, so Anik and I come over to your house, and you've got this really cool lamp, and in my exuberance of teaching or whatever, joking around, insulting, as I always do,

I knock over your lamp and I break your lamp, whether it's accidental or on purpose, doesn't really matter, and I say, oh, dude,

I'm sorry, man, you know, and in real life, I'm gonna buy another lamp, get a better one, obviously, because that's why it was so bad, so I'm gonna get him a better lamp in the whole bed, something his wife

Christina will like, you know, with nice dancing lights and some, and so anyway, but Joe's really cool, because he is really cool, and Joe says to me, don't worry,

Matt, I forgive you for breaking the lamp, but give me $10 for it, now, is that true forgiveness?

No, it's not true forgiveness, why? In true forgiveness, if you forgive, is there a debt?

So if I am indebted, because I broke his property, in real life, I'm gonna replace it, but we're talking about the illustration of what forgiveness is, and also getting into atonement work, why he had to be man,

God of men, and so, so okay, so he says, don't, he says,

Matt, I forgive you for breaking the lamp, but give me $10 for it, that's not true forgiveness, to forgive, and then

Neek is sitting there, and she's done nothing, and so Joe says to me, Matt, I forgive you for breaking the lamp,

Neek, you pay me $10 for the lamp, is that true forgiveness? No, no, he's just transferring the debt to somebody else who's not involved, so who's left to pay for the replacement of the lamp in true forgiveness?

Who? Him, yeah, yeah, yeah,

Joe, and because Joe's the, who's, okay, so Joe's the one who was offended, right,

Joe's the one who forgives, and Joe's the one who pays, this is an illustration of true forgiveness, when we sin, who do we sin against?

Who forgives? Who pays? God. If Jesus is an angel, as the,

J -dub, thanks, the J -dubs teach, or he's, as Mormonism teaches, he's just, you know, he's another

God, not the one who gave the law, the one who was sinned against, then what we have is a sin being transferred to another person who's not the offender or the offended, has no bearing on the issue of who's to forgive or who's to pay, make sense?

So this is why, as an illustration, why Jesus, in order to forgive us, has to be both the one who is the offended and the one who pays.

When we sin, how do we get that taken care of? Well, we have to have an atonement, and we know from Leviticus 17 .11

that the life is in the blood, and it's made for sacrifice for sins, and in 1

John 1 .7, the blood of Christ cleanses a small sin. Okay, so we know this is the case, so what's happening here is

God is saying, you've offended me, and there needs to be a restitution, something's gotta be fixed, we can't leave the damage undone, because that's, if God doesn't punish the sinner, he's approving of sin.

If he says, don't sin, and then he'll get his sin, he doesn't do anything, then he's not holy, he's not righteous, he's not just.

So he knows that nobody is capable, in any way, shape, or form, of making amends with God.

And we sometimes joke, how long would it take, if we could lose our salvation, how long would it take to lose our salvation?

Less than a second, you know? If that long, who knows, you know? I've had people tell me,

I don't sin anymore. Yeah, you're so good, you walk on water too.

And so, we don't have any ability to offer anything to God.

Our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God, Isaiah 64, 6. No man does good,

Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12. We can't do anything, period. Some people make this arrogant mistake of saying, well, as long as I'm sincere,

God'll know my heart, and therefore, he'll, you know, it's okay. So my response is, so,

God will show you favor based on how good you are, right? You're arrogant.

You've never been in the presence of God, because I'll tell you, in the presence of God, you don't say that.

Like Isaiah 6, when Isaiah's in the presence of God, he says, be gone from me, from a man of unclean lips. You know, he's a holiness.

He says, be gone. Please leave me. Too much. Can't handle it, you know?

And so, you get the arrogance of people. Yeah, I don't sin anymore. And, you know, he understands my sincerity, because basically,

I'm good enough in heart, and he's cool. You know, he's a blond -haired, blue -eyed, Caucasian surfer dude, asking for permission to come into my heart, just like that stupid praise song,

God, I give you permission. Do I take those writers and say, you're heretic, and let me correct you, teach you.

But anyway, so, because of this, we are completely and totally incapable of offering anything to God.

We can't offer anything to God. This is why the one who's offended has to be the forgiver.

But the only way to be forgiven is to make the payment. And the way to make the payment is to become one of us and die.

This is why Jesus Christ has to be God in flesh. Now, the first night we talked, we talked about the nature of the

Trinity, Unitarian, Binatarian, Trinitarian, Quadratarian, I think we went into that, and went into the issues of why the

Trinitarian essence is the best one, why it makes sense, and I can go into it again sometime if you guys want.

But in this, we have the nature of God becoming one of us under the law that he himself expressed, which is a reflection of his own character,

Matthew 12, 34, wages in his death, Romans 6, 23, and he could not die.

Jesus couldn't die under the law. Did you know that? He couldn't die. He had to be killed. He would live forever.

If no one had killed him, he'd live forever. Because the wages of sin is death.

There was no sin in Christ, 1 Peter 2, 22. He would have gone on forever and ever. And so, he had to be killed, which means that he had to be in a sinful, fallen world, et cetera.

All right. So, Jesus is one person with two distinct natures called the hypothetic union, and the communicatio idiomatum is the communication of the properties where the properties of both natures are ascribed to the single person.

So, the person has divine and human qualities. We perceive the divinity through the divinity of humanity.

Jesus is made under the law, Galatians 4, 4, for a little while lower than the angels, Hebrews 2, 9, so that he could fulfill the law,

Matthew 5, 17, and 18, which he did without ever sinning, 1 Peter 2, 22.

So, he did everything that's perfect. He did everything we could not because we're incapable of satisfying

God because our righteous deeds are used menstrual cause before God, Isaiah 64, 6.

That's what the Bible says. This is a quick issue of why

Christ is who he is. Now, remember, eutychianism would say the natures are undiscernible.

Monophysitism would say it's a new third thing, monophysitism.

Nestorianism would say that there's two persons, and I forgot what's on the tip of my tongue, where he became the

Christ at his baptism. That's one thing. Oh, it's right there.

I was just thinking on it a while back. Anyway, all these things, it'll come to me later.

Anyway, so here's a question. Now, you've probably heard in the radio talk about this. Why was Jesus baptized?

To fulfill the law, right? That's what he says, Matthew 4, I think, 4 .11, I think.

So, he was baptized to fulfill the law, to fulfill all righteousness. Now, always think in terms of Jesus as the

God -man, as two natures. Never think of him as just the man.

So, he was baptized because he was made under the law, Galatians 4 .4, because he had to fulfill righteousness.

Now, what happened at his baptism was the Lord spoke, my beloved Son in whom

I am well pleased. He was 30 years old when he started his ministry. He had to be anointed with oil, and the

Holy Spirit came down upon him. This is out of 1 John 2 .27. It talks about the anointing he received. But this is typified in Leviticus 8,

Numbers 4, and Exodus 29. And in those three chapters, if you were to go through, you'd find that in order for a man to enter into the priesthood, he had to be 30 years of age.

He had to be anointed with oil. Now, I'm gonna teach you guys something. The thing sanctified was anointed.

So, if I were to use this phone as a holy instrument, we would go get oil, we'd pray about it, and we would anoint it.

And it's a symbolic setting apart for holy use. We don't immerse it into oil.

We anoint it with oil, or we could anoint things with blood. The blood is applied to things.

The oil is applied to things. And the priest had to be sprinkled with water.

That's Numbers 8 .7. So, it literally says sprinkled with water. Now, why is that?

Because the thing that is sanctified there for the holy use is anointed by others for that holy use.

Turn the airco down a little bit. And this is called an anointing. And it's not something that is taught very much in Christian circles today.

Jesus received an anointing with the Holy Spirit coming upon him, but the priest needed to be anointed with oil as well, and water had to be applied to him.

So, the element of water was sprinkled upon them as was the oil, as was blood in various circumstances and various things.

This is the pattern of application for the anointing of holiness, sanctification being set apart for holy use.

This is how it was done. You don't find this idea of being immersed.

People say, your hands are immersed in water. Well, yeah, but the whole person isn't. Because even when,

I forgot where it's in the Gospels, Peter said, well, then don't do this with my feet, the whole of me.

He says, no, if we just do your feet, then you're clean. And it's a symbol of the anointing that's coming upon someone.

And this idea is biblical, and it has covenantal relationship. We might get into that stuff later.

Now, so, Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. So, the

Old Testament priest, and Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 620,

Hebrews 725. And you can read just Hebrews 5, 6, and 7. He's a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

And he lives forever to make intercession for us. You can't be a high priest if you're not a man.

Women couldn't be high priests. You had to be at least 30 years and up. And so,

Jesus entered into the priesthood, this is what I believe, at the age of 30 to be our high priest by fulfilling the law and the things he did, anointing, verbal blessing was given, anointing with oil, the

Holy Spirit, sprinkling of water, which I believe he was sprinkled, not immersed. We can get into the issue of baptism.

I can go through baptism stuff with you guys. Maybe we'll just do a whole thing on baptism one night, talk about various different ideas of baptism, because I can shake up a lot of people's views of what baptism is.

And I can show you where baptism is actually sprinkling. I can show you where baptism is pouring.

I can show you where baptism is immersion. Okay? Now, in the

Old Testament, Jesus was under the law. He had to obey the law. He could not break the law.

So, in order to enter into the priesthood, he had to fulfill the law. And since Jesus says in John 5 .39,

you search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life, but as he's a bear witness of me, then the scriptures are about Jesus.

So then, everything about the Old Testament is ultimately about Jesus. So, the priesthood, where the priesthood, the atoning sacrifice is about Jesus.

Now, so on Yom Kippur, the high priest would go in to the temple. He'd go through all the temple stuff, which we should do a study of the temple sometime, and go in through the one door, which faced towards the rising sun and east and all this stuff.

And one door, Jesus is the one door, goes into washing the laver, goes blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, goes into the holy place.

He's got blood with him. And he could only go in once a year into the holy of holies.

And the priest, the priest would go in, and he had to be ceremonially clean.

Because if he wasn't, and so there was a tradition,

I don't even know if it's true, I've heard this, but it's one of those things I've not been able to verify. They would tie a rope around one of his feet, his ankles, whatever, because they heard a on the inside, they'd go, hey,

Bob, go get him. I'm not going in there. They'd pull him out. So the veil was about this thick, about four inches thick, four to six inches,

I've heard. And he'd go into the holy place, and then there's a holy of holies behind the veil.

And he would go around the edge of the veil with the blood. Very carefully, he would go in there.

Can you imagine getting ready for this? Man, man, oh man.

You know, I wouldn't be living with anybody. It would be living with my wife. I don't want to say anything wrong.

I don't want to do anything wrong. Nothing. I'm going to be sequestered here, you know, and let's go in, you know.

And at any rate, just like that guy who touched the Ark of the Covenant, you know, when he's trying to study it.

Okay, nope. Anyway, so he would go in, and in the holy of holies was the

Ark of the Covenant, and inside of it was the Ten Commandments, the Word. Right? The Word of God was

Aaron's rod, which budded life, God creating life, and manna, which is the food that God provided out of heaven, which is our word, the

Word of God, et cetera, the person of Christ, typification, all this kind of stuff. And there's more to it.

And then on top of that was the mercy seat with the angels, with the wings, you know, like that.

And then the high priest would go in there, take the blood, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat, and then leave.

So the sprinkling of the blood is what did the cleansing for the nation of Israel.

It was not being immersed in water, not being immersed in anything. It was the object being anointed, the application of an element to the object.

Now, most people are not familiar with this, but that's the Old Testament method. So that's why it says the priest must be sprinkled with water, and the things were anointed with oil, you know, anoint my head with oil.

You know, put it on your head, you know, and it would roll down, and I forgot what the wording is. But, you know, so this is what would happen, okay?

So that's part of it. So, you know, because I do hold the infant baptism, and that's part of the reason

I'm talking about this is because it is apropos for the issue of covenant and the application of elements to the one or the object that is sanctified for the holy use.

And it's consistent in the biblical form. But anyway, I'll get into a lot of that stuff later.

But it's really important because I believe that Jesus was sprinkled, not immersed. That's my opinion.

Now, people say, well, he came up out of the water. You know, where does it say he was immersed? Baptism. It doesn't mean the baptism, but baptism doesn't always mean immersion.

You know, I can show you different things that go into it. And so you can be up to your knees in the water.

Say, come up out of the water. Okay, it doesn't mean you're immersed. So all kinds of stuff. Nevertheless, let's get back to Christ.

So Christ is the one, because he was made under the law and fulfilled the requirements of the law, was then able to enter into the priesthood so that he could be the high priest sacrifice, the priest who offered it, as well as the offering under the law that he himself gave.

It's perfect. He then is the one who is offended and the one who's doing the forgiving and the one who is making the payment.

And he's also the mediator of that covenant. And he's also the priest inside of that covenant to do that.

I mean, kind of, you think about it, we go, man, I can't do anything, can I? Correct. You can't do anything.

Jesus has to do it all. I didn't know it was that bad. I thought I could maybe add something, a little sincerity, a couple of pushups, you know, nothing.

And even the faith by which we're justified, Romans 3 .28, Romans 5 .1,

Romans 4 .5, even that faith is granted to us by God, Philippians 1 .29,

and he works faith in us, John 6 .28, 29. He does everything.

People then say, but wait a minute, I am the one who decided to believe in God.

I am the one. Excuse me while I pat myself on the back while I'm talking. I'm the one who decided.

I'm the one in my wisdom who did this. I'm the one, me, me, me. God would never make someone for the purpose of damnation.

He would never not anoint to call somebody. He would never not do that. That's not the God I serve.

Well, then you don't serve the God of the Bible then, do you? That's what I say to people. I say, you'd be very careful what you say about who you think

God is and you speak for him. People do it all the time. I say, show me that in Scripture.

Well, I'll go to it. Where is it? The book of Second Hesitations? First Moronicals? No, that's my favorite.

Second Moronicals? Yeah. Yeah. Third Deuterectomy? That's your favorite?

I got some other ones, but since we're on tape, I won't say a couple other ones I got. But, you know, and so people, when they understand who

Christ is in his natures, under the law, fulfilling the law, the nature of sin against God and what's necessary to atone for that sin and how he did it all, and he became the high priest by which you can mediate the covenant, by which he's also the sacrifice in that covenant, by which then he grants us the faith and grants us repentance, 2

Timothy 2 .25. We realize, oh my goodness, he did it all.

Why? Because anything and everything we do is touched by sin. So I love talking to people who say,

I don't sin anymore. I just haven't sinned in years. Not here.

You're sinning right now in your arrogance because you're telling me you keep the law as well as Jesus.

That's what you're telling me. You don't sin. And then they go to 1 John 3 .9

and, you know, doesn't sin anymore. They don't understand what's going on there, but that's, you know. Okay, so Jesus is the complete picture.

Jesus is a complete package. The enemy comes in to destroy who Christ is.

Faith is only as good as who you put it in. If you were to be so foolish as to put your faith in me as your savior, which would be asininity 100 ,000 fold, right?

You could have all the faith in one, right? That would be wrong. Faith is only as good as who you put it in. You don't put it in Joseph Smith.

You don't put it in Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Mormonism, I mean of Jehovah's Witnesses. You don't put it in the

Pope. You don't put it in your priest. You put it in Jesus. The enemy, all he has to do is get people to put their faith and trust in someone other than Christ.

Doesn't matter. Another thing he will do is have them believe in works.

Now, having taught about Christ and the nature of his coming to the sacrifice, let's talk about the atoning effect.

And I'm going to teach, I will be teaching limited atonement. So let's talk about this because it's going to relate to who

Christ is. Now we're going to take a side step, go down the path until they unite.

Okay? So sin is breaking the law of God. First John 3 .4.

Sin is lawlessness. The law is a reflection of the character of God because Jesus says in Matthew 12 .34,

out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. God spoke out of the abundance of his own heart.

So he spoke and said, don't lie, don't steal, don't commit adultery. And so these are reflections of his character.

They are not arbitrary. And that God says, ah, let's see, is lying good or bad?

Let me decide. Let me think about it. We'll say it's bad. And it's arbitrary. He had to kind of make it up or decide it became something.

Nope. Nor is there a law that's out there in the ethereal essence of the whatever universe to which

God as a being must submit to some transcendental principle.

And so God answers to that, which means something be greater than him. No. Instead, since God is what he is in complete totality of all that he is, then he reveals what is right and wrong out of himself, because he is a standard of right and wrong.

Well, and what I mean by standard of wrong, that's not really applicable to God. Wrong is that which is contrary to the nature of God.

So he's a standard of what is right. And anything contrary to his nature automatically is wrong. His holiness is pervasive.

His justice, his mercy, his grace, his kindness, his love have a real existence and a real depth that can be experienced and felt as an emanating presence from his holiness when you're in his presence.

But that's another topic too. Now, because of what the law is, we could say that the law itself is good.

The law is good because it reflects the character of God. But the law is interesting. It brings about the opposite of what it requires.

It brings about the opposite of what it requires. It says, be holy and shows you where you're not holy.

It says, don't sin and shows you where you do sin. It says, keep these commandments and you'll live, but it kills you because you don't keep them.

The law is interesting. It's very good because it reflects the character of God, but it's bad because we can't keep it.

And the standard of keeping the law is perfection. Now, God says in 1 Peter 1, 16, be holy for I am holy.

And it also says in Galatians 3, 10, that you've got to keep all of the law because in Deuteronomy 27, 26,

Moses tells us that, you know, you've got to basically do all the law. That's where it is. The standard is

God and, you know, keep all the commandments and all the things written. Love God with all your heart, love your neighbors yourself.

And so we're not able to do this because we're sinners by nature, Ephesians 2, 3.

We are by nature, children of wrath, and we have a fallen essence. We're dead in our trespasses and sins,

Ephesians 2, 1. But of course, God indwells us because we're born again. He indwells us,

John 14, 23. And we're born again, John, 1

Peter 1, 3. Okay. He caused us to be born again. And we're born again, not of our own will, but the will of God, John 1, 13.

So the law is good. We can't keep it.

So the law becomes a difficult taskmaster. We can't keep it. But the law, on the other hand,

Galatians 3, 24, is a tutor that leads us to Christ.

And I'll explain why the word tutor is used. But it leads us to Christ because it shows us our inability to keep it.

The law crushes us. The law destroys us. The law is like a big bag of rags, of bolts, of rocks, of things that are heavy.

And the law is huge. And we carry it around, or the Mormons, the

Jehovah's Witnesses, the Roman Catholics, the Muslims, they carry around this law to please

God with. And it becomes burdensome. And the idea of the law is to show you you can't keep the law.

And the standard is perfection. But people in their arrogance say, well, I can do pretty well in most things.

No, you can't, not even in one. The law is a tutor that leads us to Christ. What does that mean?

In the ancient Roman culture and stuff like that, there was often slaves who were revered members of the household.

They're called slaves, even, douloid. And some of them had the privileged position of raising the children of the master.

It was a very privileged position. And so these slaves sometimes were quite educated.

And that was their job. And when the children would graduate to a level of excellence and knowledge, they were given a robe, a white robe.

This is why it says, Galatians 3 .27, the tutor who will lead you to Christ, you'll be clothed in his righteousness, clothed with Christ.

Because it's a play on the issue of the ancient tutor who would lead us. And that's what the law does.

It's a tutor that leads us to Christ, so we can be clothed in righteousness by faith. Because the law is something that shows us we can't keep it.

And so the law makes us thirsty for grace. This is why law must be preached before the gospel.

You are guilty. You're wrong. You're going to hell. The flames are looking at your feet right now. And the only reason you're still alive is the grace of God, because he can short circuit your heart, your brain, and you could be dead before you drop to the ground.

And you'll already be on your way to eternal damnation. And nothing but his mercy and his grace keeps you alive. And you need him because you have sinned against him.

And he's holy and righteous, and that judgment is waiting for you. He is merciful to you even now,

Mr. Atheist, Mr. Agnostic, Mr. Whoever, Mr. Whatever. And so that law does that.

That law is severe. The law is heavy. The law is hard. So if you're talking to somebody, incidentally, and they're not a

Christian, well, they don't realize it, but they're carrying law around. So what you need to do is politely, quietly, gently, is get behind them and jump up on top of that bag of law they're carrying, and then get up on there and jump on it.

Get that law. Let them feel the weight of that law until it breaks them. Help them be broken by the weight of the law.

I actually use that analogy, that thing. Get on top of them. Jump on that bag of law they're carrying.

They don't realize how heavy it is. Because Jesus says, my burden is light, right? You go to Matthew 11, 28.

Come to me, all who are heavy laden, and I'll give you rest. My burden is light. And so He took the law.

People can do the law, or He can do the law. He did it perfectly. I can't do any of it perfectly, not a single thing.

I'm very good, however, at sinning. I'm very good at arrogance and pride and selfishness and stupidity.

And if my wife were sitting here, too bad she's not, you know, she's sick right now, she'd be listing off for another 20, 30 minutes just in the

A's, you know, other areas of faults that I've got. And so the law is good, but it's deadly.

The law is powerful because it comes out of the heart of God. And the law makes no concessions.

The standard of the law is perfection because God is perfect. He doesn't lower His standard for us.

So we can't keep that law. That's why God, whose heart the law came from, becomes one of us under the law,

Galatians 4, 4, and keeps the law perfectly, 1 Peter 2, 22, because only He can do it, right?

It's perfect. So sin is breaking the law of God, 1 John 3, 4.

When we sin, we sin against God because it's His law that we break. So the weight of sin is death,

Romans 6, 23. And your sin has caused a separation between you and God, Isaiah 59, 2.

So we have a problem. Now we're getting into the legal aspect of the atoning work. We'll go through it.

Sorry, folks, it's what the Bible teaches. People are going, no, it doesn't. He died for everybody. Well, we'll talk about that.

So sin is breaking the law and debts can be transferred.

In fact, Bill McKeever is a friend of mine. I've known him for decades.

He's an expert in Mormonism and we used to both live in San Diego County. And years ago, now he lives in Utah and I live here.

And I called Bill, I go, Bill, I'm going to come down. He's 40 miles south of me. I said,

I'm going to come down and buy you lunch. He goes, okay. I get to meet him again. I haven't seen him for a couple of months.

We speak at conferences together, do stuff. I go, I'll buy you lunch. Okay. I come down, I take him out to dinner or lunch and I go to get my wallet and I realized

I didn't have my wallet with me. So this is the truth. And so he looks at me, laughs, you know, and we've probably all done it one way or another, you know, oops.

And you get with your buds and then they pay the bill and now you owe him too, you know, they've ribbed you a little bit.

Oh, you know, okay. It's all fun and games. And so he paid for my lunch.

I was going to buy for him, but I incurred, so to speak, my verbal commitment, I'm going to pay for your lunch.

So now I owe him that lunch, but then he's paid me that. So basically I owe him too. I'm not going to make up for the one, just get it even.

Then I still take him out to lunch. And so literally a couple of months later,

I go, Bill, I owe you lunch. I'm going to come down and buy you lunch. And he goes, okay. And no lie.

I forgot my wallet for the second time. For the second time, I can still remember him sitting there and, and, uh,

I grabbed my wallet and I go, and I can see his face going, you forgot your wallet again.

And I can see the whole future. I can see decades to come. He'd be teasing me about, did you bring your wallet?

And to this day, if I say, Hey Bill, I'm gonna go up, come down and we'll go out to dinner. He goes, you're bringing your wallet. It's happens all the time.

And now other of my friends say, you can bring your wallet and everything else. Okay. But this is a fun story and it's true.

I do want to go down next in a couple of three weeks and buy him dinner. I have to make sure I have my wallet with me. So, um, okay.

So that's all fun and games. Okay. But the point is that he could pay my debt because my debt is transferable to him.

And so if I have a debt, uh, at, you know, whatever store, um, could any one of you go into that store and say,

I want to pay this off for, for Matt, you can do that, right? And they go, yeah, well, it's his account here.

It is there. It's money. And then you tell me, right? Well, I didn't know about that. It doesn't matter.

It's paid because sin is a transferable debt. Therefore sin, the debt of sin could be transferred to Christ.

That's why it says he bore our sins in his body on the cross. First Peter two 24, because it was imputed reckoned to his account legally.

So that our sin that we've committed was imputed to Christ on the cross. This is only possible if sin is legal and sin is transferable.

Now, Jesus said on the cross to Telestai, John 19, 30, it is finished. It's that word's been found on some ancient tax receipts, handwritten to Telestai.

The debt's been paid in full, but Jesus is absolutely declaring a legal debt issue.

Absolutely. Remember he became under the law, legal sin is breaking the law legal.

He's our substitution. Isaiah 53, four through six, he bore our stripes. So he's our substitution and he bore our sins in his body.

How do you bear a sin in someone's body? No, you don't.

But if my daughter and I are out in a parking lot and she's 10 years old and she picks up a rock and she throws it at a car and chips a window, what

I would do is I'd write a note. My daughter broke your window and I need to pay for it because she's my daughter.

I'm responsible for her. And I wouldn't even know. That's what I would honestly do. And take care of the debt because she's under my authority and I represent her.

And so if she does something, I'm held accountable. Okay. That's what I'm supposed to do.

Instead of people running and hiding and then that's it. So sin is an interesting concept.

It has legal quality. So sin is a legal debt. It's not only a legal debt because sin separates us and destroys us.

Sin has emotional, mental, physical consequences. But what we're talking about here right now is sin as it relates to Christ because Christ became sin.

And that's 2 Corinthians 5 .21. He became sin on our behalf.

How is that possible? Only if it was imputed to his account. It was imputed.

It was reckoned to his account. Because it was reckoned to his account, that means the sin debt can then be paid for.

Now, if you go to Colossians 2 .13 and 14, it says in Colossians 2 .13

and 14, the last few words of Colossians 2 .13, it says, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

A transgression is the breaking of the law. It's another word for sin. I think it's, no,

I forgot. So it's a breaking of the law of God.

So having forgiven us all our transgressions. And then verse 14, having canceled the certificate of debt, consisting of decrees, which is hostile to us, he's taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

So it says, having canceled the certificate of debt. Now, some translations will say the handwriting of ordinances, or some will say,

I think the writing of debt or something like that. The word, it's a single

Greek word in Greek. The certificate of debt is a single Greek word, kairagraphon.

And yes, this is showing off. It's a hapax legomena, hapax legomena,

H -A -P -A -X legomena. What it means is a word that occurs only once in a body of text.

That word, kairagraphon, only occurs once in the entire Bible right there. Therefore, it's a hapax legomena.

I pay for that word, that knowledge in seminary, so I get to use it every now and then. All right. So that word means a legal debt, okay, a handwritten

IOU of legal indebtedness, kairagraphon, care, hand, graphe, writing.

And it's used in other ancient writings. That's how they, when we have a hapax legomena in the scriptures, in order to know what it means, you look at the context and you look at other ancient writings, and then it's used in other writings.

And so some lexicons will actually say, and so and so, this philosopher, the word is used here, and this philosopher, and they use the context from the culture in a time, because the

Bible is written in that cultural context. Now, the immediate context always takes precedence.

So we can learn what words mean in a context, and it means a handwritten IOU of legal indebtedness.

Okay. Now, there are two ways to look at this. It's either the sin debt or it's the law. We'll go through both. We'll go to the law first.

Let's just say that, because it says, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, dogmas, dogmas, which occurs five times in the

New Testament, dogmas against us, which was hostile to us, or the dogma, they say, some people say it's the law, the

Old Testament law, which was hostile to us. He's taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Now, this nailing to the cross is interesting, because the offense of the criminal was nailed to the cross along with the criminal.

Now, Jesus, the offense, was listed in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, the three or four languages.

In Hebrew, it says that he was Jesus Christ, the King of the

Jews. And in Hebrew, the first of each letter is

Yod -Heh -Vod -Heh, the Tetragrammaton Yahweh. So that's why the

Jews would say, no, say he said he was the King of the Jews. And Pilate goes, what

I've written, I've written. Interesting. Remember, the

Bible says that he became sin. And don't forget, when they lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, all who look upon it by faith were healed, because it's a symbol, ultimately, of the cross of Christ, because the serpent, the snake, the entrance, the symbol of sin is what

Jesus became. Not that he was satanic, that's not it, but the sin was imputed to him. So the cross -pollination of symbol right there, and that's what's going on.

So he became sin on our behalf. Now, so when

I went and Bill paid my lunch, he paid for two of them.

I have paid him back since, but that took me a couple of years, a few years. So the meal was paid for.

Could the manager then come to me and say, Matt, you had to pay that meal? I'd say, well, but he just paid it.

He got the receipt. So he can't do that. It would be wrong to do that, right?

It'd be wrong, because when a legal debt is paid, the legal debt doesn't exist anymore.

Sin is a legal debt. It's breaking the law of God. You've been indebted to God. People will say that Jesus bore the sins of everybody who ever lived, and he paid their sin debt at the cross, but if that's the case,

I say, does a paid sin still exist? Paid for, if it's been paid for, does it still exist?

They say, well, no. Can anybody go to hell for sin that doesn't exist? No, because if they do say that God will send them to hell, then

God's unrighteous because he's sending them for sin that's not even there. So they don't realize they're actually accusing

God of unrighteousness when they say that. Back to the law. If the law is what chirographon means, the certificate of debt, then the law is canceled.

But Romans 5 .13 says, without the law, there is no imputation of sin. That would mean that if the law is what reveals our sin, and the law puts us under sin, and without that law, there isn't any sin, don't eat of that tree.

The first instance of law, because the law is a reflection of the character of God, righteousness is always in the present with God, and is always the issue, the obligation of following righteousness.

And so we're made in God's image, so Adam was in the garden tree of good and evil, and of life and good and evil, don't eat of that one.

The knowledge, because it's issues of why we had to know, and it's a symbol of the law of God, a reflection of the character of God, which is necessary, because as God speaks out of the abundance of his heart, it's always going to be an issue of what is righteous, the weight of law.

Otherwise, God is going to, because whatever he says is always moral. Don't lie, don't steal, this is good.

It's out of his character. It's not that it's a moral part and a mental part and an emotional part. No, we talk about divine simplicity, and the nature of God is all one thing, and if he speaks, everything that he speaks is moral.

So when he speaks, the morality of the existence of the law is a natural emanation of his character, so the manifestation of that is found in the garden.

As he spoke things into existence, it's a moral declaration upon mankind, which is why

God says that everybody knows that God lives, it's a moral issue, because they look at creation.

When they deny the truth of creation, they're committing sin, because they are under obligation to recognize the truth of the creative work of God, because ultimately it ties into his character of his heart.

So when we break the law, we're offending the very character of God, and because of that, there's a judgment upon us, and we cannot satisfy that law because God is infinite.

I've been to the Grand Canyon, I think it was like 17 miles across, so I don't know if that's the right number, but I could get in the fastest sneakers

I got, lose some weight, and I could jump, and I'm never gonna make it, no matter how good

I am. Even Bolt, the guy that set the world record for speed, that's it.

Because the gap is too vast between us and God, it's an infinite gap, it's impossible for us to satisfy, to meet, so therefore

God is the one that has to do it, he becomes one of us in Christ, he fulfills the requirement of the law. So then, because he did that, and sin is a transferable debt, then our sin debt is transferred to Christ on the cross.

If the kiragophon refers to the law, and the law is canceled, there can be no sin for anybody, because that would mean he canceled the law for everybody who ever lived, nobody could go to hell.

But people do go to hell, Mark 3, 29, Matthew 25, 46, Revelation 14, 11, and 20, 10, people do go to hell.

That means their sin has to still remain upon them, but how could it remain upon them if the sin debt's canceled, if he paid their debt?

Well, you gotta accept it. Wrong, I'm giving an illustration. Coma man, coma man, so coma man, he's not in a coma yet, but he's gonna be pretty soon here, he goes to the bank once a month, he likes to walk down the street, or drive the car, you know, he likes doing this, and he goes to the bank, meets a teller, nice little fun thing, he gets coffee on the way back, and he pays $1 ,000 a month for his mortgage on this house, just does it every month, and he likes it.

And on the way there, he's crossing the street, or whatever, gets hit by a car, boom, he's in a coma, in the hospital, he's in a coma, he's out of it, he's gonna recover, don't worry, it's all gonna be good.

And so while he's in this coma, okay, a philanthropist hears about his plight,

I don't know how, but he does, it's my story, don't worry about it, he hears about his plight, and he's got a lot of money, and he says,

I'm gonna go to the bank and pay off this guy's mortgage, because he's gonna have medical bills, I like him, he's a nice guy, I'm gonna pay off his mortgage, he goes to the bank, talks to the manager, he writes a check, paid off.

Now, the man's still in the coma, is the debt paid off? Yes. Is he aware of it?

No. Does his awareness have any validity of whether it's paid off or not paid off? No. Okay, so miraculous recovery, hey, look, he's out, and then he gets out of the hospital, and he says, oh,

I forgot to pay my mortgage, I've been out for a month, you know, they'll be cool, they'll be cool, so he goes to the bank, and he's in a coma, look, you know, and all this stuff, what happened to me?

And he goes up to the teller, and he, you know, writes a check, and the teller, and goes, oh, I'm sorry, your debt's been paid.

And he said, what do you mean it's been paid? And he said, well, it's been paid, and the guy says, coma man, says, well,

I don't like that, I pay my own debts, take my check. He says, we can't, there's no debt, period.

Well, I don't receive that as true, I don't believe it's true, doesn't matter if you believe it or receive it, has no bearing on the actuality of the legal satisfaction.

Well, I don't like it, I don't have to like it,

I pay my own debt, there's no debt to pay, that's the Arminian position, you know, you're gonna pay your own debt, because you said, well,

I don't believe it, you gotta believe, you gotta accept it, you know, if he doesn't accept it, doesn't believe it, doesn't like it, doesn't want it, doesn't make any difference, it's taken care of.

If Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross, and he died with them, and the wages of sin is death, and he died, the legal debt's paid, satisfied, isn't it?

Then, can you go to hell? Absolutely not. Now, Colossians 2 .14,

he cancels the certificate of debt. If it's a sin debt that's canceled, when is it canceled? At the cross, not when you believe, not when you get baptized.

And people are gonna say to me, that can't be true, because you're saved when you believe.

And I said, canceling the debt, and justification, and salvation are all three different things.

A sin debt canceled is not the same thing as salvation. Salvation is being saved from the righteous judgment of God.

It involves the canceling of the debt. Justification is the imputation of the righteousness of God to you by faith.

The righteousness that's not our own, Philippians 3 .9, that we receive by faith, Romans 3 .24,

Romans 4 .5, Romans 5 .1, Galatians 2 .16, 2 .21. We receive the righteousness of God by faith, but that can't happen until we believe.

2 ,000 years ago, Jesus bore my sin in his body on the cross, 1

Peter 2 .24, and canceled the certificate of debt, sin debt, my sin debt on the cross 2 ,000 years ago.

And I'm not even born. So when I am born, am

I born saved? No, because I didn't get saved, justified until I was 17.

So for 17 years of my life, I was under condemnation, yet I'm elect, and yet my sin debt's been canceled.

Now how can that be? Well, it can be that the same way from any theological perspective within Christianity, even if they're

Minion, that he canceled your sin debt, you just gotta believe it. And once you believe it, it becomes true, becomes valid.

They say when you believe it, it becomes valid. We don't say that. We say that the work of Christ is not dependent upon whether or not you believe it.

It's dependent upon the efficacy and the work of Christ, because he is the one who made it work, therefore it's valid.

So we have what's called the now and the not yet. We went over this before. So the now, if I was 15, when

I was 15, the now was I'm not saved, yet my sin debt's been canceled.

That's the now, but not yet I will be saved, not yet. But yet it's gonna happen.

And this is so because, as Jesus says, all that the Father gives me will come to me. And the ones who come to me,

I certainly will not cast out. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholds, you know, believes will have eternal life,

Matthew, John 6, 40. So those who are given by the

Father to the Son are done. This is done because if you go to Ephesians 1, 4, just as he, the

Father, chose us, the elect, in him, the Son, before the foundation of the world. Now remember, we talked about the nature of the

Trinity before. We go back to the issue of the Trinity. In the inter -Trinitarian communion, God always knew everything all the time.

And the election of the saved, the people to be saved, can only be done in him, in Christ, which is eternal, eternally done, eternally in the past, which means the

Word was always going to be the Son, hence the eternal Sonship of Christ. He's always going to be in that position of the

Son in the incarnation. So this eternal nature of the eternal covenant,

Hebrews 13, 20, is where the Father would give to the Son, the elect, and the Holy Spirit would apply the redemptive work.

Jesus was to become one of us, bear the sins of the elect, and cancel the sin that hit the cross.

Then God would grant to the elect at the appropriate time, belief, so that they were then justified.

And they were regenerate at that time. And then they become saved. People say, well, that doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does. Go to Romans 8, 29, and 30, those who before knew, he also predestined.

Those who he predestined, he also called, also called, also justified, because justification is a future thing that happens to us.

I mean, glorification is something that happens to us, and we've not yet been glorified per 1 Corinthians 15, 35 through 45, talks about the glorification of the body.

This has not yet happened. But yet it's said to be happening in the past tense, because we're in Christ, and it's so guaranteed that it's going to happen, it's spoken of in the past tense.

Therefore, the elect, who are given by the Father to the Son, is whom, for whom Christ's blood shed, and who

Christ atoned, and who Christ canceled their sin debt. It's canceled at the cross, but they're justified when they believe.

They're not born saved, because they have to go to the place of being believers. Once they do become believers, then they're justified, and the full manifestation of the elective work of God, the atoning sacrifice of Christ, it becomes a reality, the now and the not yet.

This makes perfect sense. It works with Scripture and everything, and people say he wants all to be saved.

We can get into that if people have any objections, because I'll take a break here a little bit, and we can have people fire questions at me in the chat room, and I'll see them in here maybe, and we can take a look, and stuff like that.

Now, does that make sense? It does. It blows my mind, but it makes sense.

It blows your mind? Yeah, it does. Because of God's economy, because of how well

God works. It just, I'll go, oh, I see it. It makes sense, but the

Arminian position leaves you with problems.

The Arminian position says, well,

Jesus, what he did was he bore the sin of everybody who ever lived, which can't be the case, and he canceled their sin debt, because he paid for it, yet they go to hell.

That makes God unrighteous. Capricious. Huh? And capricious? Yes, it does.

Kind of whimsical. Then you have the Mormon God. All right, so if you guys have questions, I want to see what your questions are in the text.

I can read them here on my phone. All right, I'm trying to get this volume down all the way, so I can make it muted.

There we go. No, mute everything. I can hear it, myself talking.

Okay, a little bit. All right, so I'm entertaining myself. Simple minds, simple entertainment.

Could you guys share my feedback at all? Just tell me in the chat room, because I want to open this up to discussion, if you guys are interested.

It says Matt to himself, again, talking to myself. That's what I do to my wife.

I'll ask her a question. She's got to think about it. I go, it says Matt to himself. And she'll look at me and go, once we're driving along,

I'll give a little story. So once we're driving along, Anik and I are in the car, and I ask her a question.

And so I'm driving, and what are those questions you got to think about? So I waited. She didn't quite answer.

She had to answer, and I go, so I started talking for her. And I said, so you're probably going to say that you don't like what

I said, because you're going to say this, but then I'm going to come back with this. And if you say that, I'm going to come back with this, but you're going to respond to that with this way.

I know what's going to happen is you're going to come back with this, but I'm going to get upset. And I go, no, no, no. And so it's a conversation for like a minute.

I elevate it, and to where I got her in trouble. I go, and I'm not talking to you anymore because of that. And then she's just looking at me the whole time, and she's trying not to laugh.

And she goes, but... She did that to my wife.

I'm not talking to you. She's like...

And you do fun stuff like that with your wife. You're driving down the road, and it's during the summer. And she goes, man, it's hot.

And you point something at the car tree, and you turn the heat up. Yeah.

And then I said, well, she goes, did you turn the heat on? And how's that happen? Right in the arm.

So stuff like that. I've got all kinds of stuff I do to my wife like that.

I can be in the... Wait for that. Come on. This is a little break here. So be in the mall, and she's always going to be on my left side.

And so I want her to hold her right index finger or right hand on my little pinky.

And the reason is I want to be able to disconnect if I have to protect her. So that's just where I am.

Okay. And so we always walked up. Nothing's ever happened. But so anyway, we're in the mall, right? We're walking along.

And what I would do is start walking a little bit faster than her. Just a little bit faster than her on purpose.

Just a little bit faster. And then after a few minutes, she catches up and she starts walking. And then

I walk a little bit slower than her. Just a little bit slower. And then she'd get used to that. And then

I walk a little bit faster like this. Just go for 20 minutes. And then finally she starts hitting me.

What are you doing? What do you mean? What am I doing? I know you're doing something, but just stop it. You're doing something.

I don't know what it is, but it's irritating me. Yeah. I'd say, what?

I'd say, are you having a good time? I'd say, smile if you're having a good time. She tries to smuggle.

You're only encouraging me. That's how I, you know,

I still say to her, am I boring? She goes, that's one way of saying it. All right.

Matt, what is your, what is your views of William Lane Craig on the monotheism approach?

I don't know what his view is in the monotheism approach. So I can't respond. Okay. Can't wait to meet

Anique. She's not coming down probably when I go down there to Utah.

So anyway, you know, let's not get an hour and 15. I don't want to see anybody writing more questions that are okay.

Okay. So what'd you think? Give me some feedback. I can make a case that he was strangled.

No, no. And they go right to God. Where does it say he's immersed? It doesn't.

It doesn't. Then here, let's do a little bit of baptism stuff for fun. Cause I'm rusty on this.

So in a different way of doing this. Okay. So in Joel 2 .32,

I think it is. Let me see if I can find my Bible program. I'll start doing. Okay. Now you started me.

Okay. Let's go. I can't do it all the way.

Oh, it is. Okay. Let me try this. What I'm gonna do is get out of that then. Okay.

Now I'm out. What? So if there's any questions, you can just text me. Okay. Charlie or Laura, if you want, you guys can hear that for feedback and stuff.

Okay. Good. I won't come to it again. Again, the phone phone thing.

Yeah. Yeah. That's one word for it. Okay. Let me get into the, there we go.

Okay. Now, so we'll talk about baptism. Is that what you want to talk about? Or you're curious or what do you want to do?

I can get into a little bit if you want. Or you have, tell you what, we can talk about atonement some more.

Questions about atonement. I can talk about baptism too, but under the law, but I wanted people to understand that the reason that he was baptized was to fulfill the law and that the law is a good thing, but we can't keep it.

Jesus did. Okay. So let's see if anybody wants to.

So if Charlie wants to type any questions or how about Laura, I think Charlie's doing the room with the links.

So if Laura, I think you're in there, you can, so if someone is, she says, if someone is elect years before they come to salvation, would they be predisposed to commit mortal sins such as murder?

Yeah. They would, they would have murder in their hearts. All people would. So that the issue is that, can an elect person commit murder?

Heck yeah. And adultery? Yeah. Lying, cheating, stealing? Absolutely. Can an elect person commit blasphemy with the

Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable? No. Can an elect person die without believing? No.

God does not elect someone to salvation and then forgets or goofs in the issue of redeeming them because if he elects them for salvation, it's going to happen because God is

God. Okay. So there's that. Hope that answered.

Sorry. I mean, what is your view on monotheism? I meant, sorry. Monotheism is good. There's only one

God. That's what monotheism is. All right. Question for the chat. Does the Holy Spirit convict the whole world or only elect?

That was May 6th. That was last. Okay. So tell you what, Laura. Okay, good. Hey, Matt, could you share with us why salvation for some and not others is not unfair?

Some people think that when they talk about fairness, they'd say, well, that they have a standard of righteousness that God must adhere to.

It must be the case that God must save everybody or must provide an equal opportunity to everybody.

That's how God would have to be. And I say, well, where'd you get that? Show me that in scripture. Let's say he wants all to be saved.

Yes, it does talk about that. In 1 Timothy 2, 4, there's all to be saved. In 2 Peter 3, 9,

I think it is. But then Jesus speaks in parables so that people will not be saved.

He specifically says so in Mark 4, 10 through 12. So we have a Bible study then we've got to get into on the issue of the word all as it relates to people.

And it does relate in different terms, different ways. 2 Corinthians 5, 14 says that Christ died for all, therefore all died.

When you take the term all died and that people dying, it's a term of only the elect, only the believers are the ones who died with Christ.

And I can get into that and I can go into that more depth. And so I just thought about something else to teach on the nature and the work of the

Holy Spirit. But at any rate, so I said it on the radio today and I said the word all can mean everybody, but it can also mean a limited group.

Just as the phrase the many also in Romans 5, 18, 19 can mean the same thing,

Romans 5, 19, by which the many were made righteous. The many died, the many were made righteous.

God uses words differently than we do. And what I like people to do is to try and figure out how it is that God speaks.

You know, I teach people, I'll say two men are in the field, one is taken, one is left. That's a rapture, right? No, it's not.

We show them the context. I never knew that. Does God know everybody? No, he doesn't.

Yes, he does. He knows everything. No, it didn't say knows everything, it said does he know everyone? It's a phrase that God uses.

Get away from me, I never knew you, Matthew 7, 23. So to know, to be known by God means you're saved.

Jesus says in John 10, 27, my sheep hear my voice and I know them. Okay. And so we see that relationship and there's other verses like that as well.

So I just try to say to people, the word all means what it means in this context. And so only

Christians have died to sin and died with Christ, Romans 6, 6, Romans 6, 8, Romans 6, 2,

Colossians 3, 1 through 5. Only Christians have died with Christ. So therefore only the Christians have died.

We don't say unbelievers have died to sin, unbelievers have not died to the world, et cetera. So when we go to 2

Corinthians 5, 14, the love of Christ controls us having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.

Who's the all? It can't be everybody ever lived because not everybody ever lived, died in Christ.

In Christ means he represented them. I show this to people and they're like, never seen that before.

Here it is. Let me show you other things in the Bible. And I believe this happened years ago with Romans 5, 18, when

I discovered that verse in the NASB went to the Greek and looked and discovered that God uses words differently than we do.

And we need to find what's called a semantic domain. A semantic domain means that a word has a range of meaning.

So what does the word green mean? So it could mean money, money, color, color, new, lack of experience, new, naive, sick, envy.

Okay. And so context determines the meaning.

So for example, the word green has a semantic domain of a lot of different meanings. There's more than what we just listed.

And so you don't do what's called illegitimate totality transfer, where it has a meaning over here.

Let's transfer the meaning there to over illegitimate totality transfer.

It's an exegetical error. We don't want to do that. And so the word all means what it means in context.

I've had people say to me, oh, all doesn't mean all. What do you mean?

I always say it's a dumb question, but they're being antagonistic. And I say, look, words mean what they mean in context.

All the world was taxed. Does that mean the people in New Zealand were taxed back in the Roman time? No. So what does it mean by all?

No, you tell me. I actually get people talking to me like that. Look, we're not going to talk like an adult. I don't want to have a conversation with you.

I tell them. All right. Let's see. Hey, Matt, could you share with us why?

Oh, I did that. It was unfair. Thank you. To get back on topic. What's unfair is that Jesus take our place and redeem us.

What's fair is that we all go to hell. When people say that he died for some and not others is not fair.

What standard do you have by which you say what is fair or not fair? And do you want fairness? I say to people, do you want

God to be fair with you? No. No. Stop whining and complaining.

We go to Romans 9, where it says, what if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath, prepared for destruction, vessels of mercy prepared for destruction, and he did so in order to show his mercy upon great vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory.

In other words, the thing is, he actually made vessels for the purpose of destruction. They go, no, he didn't.

I go, well, that's what it says in Romans right there. Romans 9, 22, 23. And Romans 16, 4, it says that he made all things, even the wicked for the day of destruction.

I show this verse to people. Well, that's not the blonde hair, blue -eyed Caucasian surfer

Jesus I know that wants everyone to be saved equally. And it's all up to us and our wisdom. I say, you're right.

It's not. Now repent. God is loving and God is kind.

But I'll say to people, we don't know how God elects. We don't know the criteria that God has in an election.

We just don't know. And so, you know,

I'll often do is I pray to the Lord for someone's salvation. I'll say, Lord, if they're not elect, please elect them.

But the election is from the foundation of the world. What I'm doing is I'm saying, God, I don't know how it all works. I'm just working with what it says.

I know you have to elect. Well, if they're not elect, can you elect them? It doesn't make any sense to say it, but it's my cry to God, submitting to his sovereignty, asking for salvation, recognizing his great sovereignty of election predestination.

Does he, did he, for example, ordain me to say the prayer out of my own heart for the salvation of someone to be elect.

And that's why he elected, not because it was my prayer, but because he ordained me to pray the prayer. Yeah. Diagram that once I got a circle and there are people who've tried to figure this out.

I got close once and then got a head rush and it's so slobbering.

It doesn't work. My wife likes it. My wife likes it because then, you know, she just, she can say anything.

That she likes. And also when I drink, it has something with pepper. She likes to see me cry like a little baby, like he bonked his head.

So anyway, that's me. If Calvinism is true, how do you explain this?

That seems to explain the Arminian approach because metaphorically speaking, he lost faith and came back to God.

That is a, it's not a parable about a salvation. It's a parable about Israel and the

Gentiles. Most people don't understand the parable, the prodigal son. So let's go through that a little bit. So he's the younger son.

He's not the older son. That's significant. The father. And then we have the older son and the younger son and the younger son's inheritance in the culture.

You didn't until your father died. That's that was it.

You never got your inheritance. Your father died. I want my inheritance now.

Basically saying, I don't care about you. I want you dead. Now in that culture, the more or less appropriate thing to do is for the father and the other sons to beat the crap out of them.

Don't you ever, ever talk to your father like that again, to wish his death like that, to take the money and spend it now.

You just do it again. I'm just thinking about it again. Okay. That's the kind of cultural setting it was.

It was very serious. Shock of all shocks. The father gives him the money.

That means the neighbors are looking at the father like, why didn't you beat the snot out of the kid? And where's the older son who has the obligation with the firstborn male to be the leader and part of a worker and a fixer of things in the household to show respect to the father?

Why is he not involved? What is up with this family? This family is a loser family. It's a complete loser family.

The father didn't show the proper, uh, righteous indignation. The elder son didn't do what was necessary.

And the father gave the, the disrespectful, horrible son, the money, and then the son takes off and goes spend it on prostitutes and things like that.

That's that's a family. They're disgusting. Get away from me.

Sick, stupid family. Okay. That's the cultural kind of look on them. So this boy spends all his money on prostitutes and all kinds of stuff.

And he goes out with the Gentiles and he's feeding pigs, unclean animal, not even supposed to touch an unclean animal.

Now he's feeding them. And he's so stinking hungry that what he wants to do is eat what their pods of food were, which basically are useless to humans.

You can starve to death on them. He's that hungry. He's that bad in the worst place.

This boy is worse than bad. He is absolutely horrible in that culture.

People are listening to this. It can't get any worse. This is, he's horrible.

This is ridiculous. This is the worst of the worst. This is like, you know, a gang member who shot his own mother, kind of a thing, and sold his sister into slavery and to be raped, and then goes out and spends all the money he stole from his mom and dad's bank account on prostitutes and the whole bit.

This is who, you know, it's like this guy just and he's so bad off, he says,

I'm going to go back and become a hired servant.

At least there I can eat. So his interest is self -survival.

He's not repentant. I'm just going to go back and be a hired servant. And he's going on the way.

And lo and behold, the father sees his son coming. What does the father do?

Runs towards him. Men like that didn't run. That was disrespectful.

It was humiliating. Children, immature people would run to get something. Men in that culture moseyed.

They spoke slowly. They spoke truthfully. They had their life under control. But he runs to the son and embraces him and kisses him.

What is wrong with him? What's wrong with the son? What's wrong with the elder son? This family is the worst.

This is the mentality that the people hearing this go, oh, they're just horrible. The Jews would understand this is bad.

What's he saying? And he says, and then the son says, I'm no longer worthy to be called your son.

He doesn't make a deal. He just, I'm not worthy. That's repentance. And so the father says, get the robe, which is a symbol of proper clothing and full restoration in the house.

The ring, which is a symbol of authority and kill the fatted calf. Now he's going to rejoice.

Now you imagine the people. What's wrong with them? This boy should be beaten at the very least.

Look what he's done to this family and brought shame upon the name of the family. The name of the family is pretty important.

What does this father do? He runs to the son in public, humiliating himself before the son, kisses him on the cheek, of course, kisses him on the cheek, gives him that ring, gives him that robe, and then kills a calf and celebrates.

Then the elder son says, he did this and this and this and this, and now you're celebrating.

And I've been with you the whole time. You never celebrated. That elder son is the Jews. You've been with me,

God says, my whole time. You've been part of me a whole life. You are the Jewish nation.

You are it. The young boy represented Gentiles, the uncleanliness of the pigs and everything else and the rejoicing of him coming back that he's rejoicing over the lost and the self -righteous

Jews. I've kept the law. I've done this. I've never done anything wrong.

That's exactly what this elder son was saying. That's exactly what the Jews were saying about God. Look what

I've done. I've not done this bad. You know, I mean, they were perfect, but you know, we've kept the law. We did this. We're faithful.

We're faithful. He said, don't you know, you've always been my son. You've always been that. But we have to rejoice because that which is lost has been found.

As the lost coin is discussed as well in that context. So it's not about salvation.

It's about the issue of the Jew and the Gentile. That's what that parable is about.

Okay. How can we make sense of love cooperation with God without libertarian free will?

Libertarian free will is the idea. Let's do compatible. Let's see how we do this. Libertarian free will is the idea that the person, the sinner is fallen, but his will is not so bad that he's not able to freely choose

God, but he is able to freely choose God. And so libertarianism says he's at liberty to be able to choose

God, but it's not exactly what libertarianism is. So compatibilism would say that the free will of man is compatible with God's predestination.

And they raised, the libertarians raised these issues. They'll say, wait a minute.

If compatibilism is true, then if free will, you have free will, which what is free will?

It's not our discussion. But if free will is true and God knows you're going to do something on a certain day, then how are you free?

Because if God knows you're going to wear that, this shirt on this day, then are you free when the day comes to not wear the shirt?

And they'll say, because God knows you're going to wear it, you're not free to not wear it. And they're wrong in their thinking.

It's bad thinking. Okay. So one of the responses I'll give, and I'll say,

God knows what you're freely going to choose, but then there's the ordination issue. I don't want to get into too many sidetracks, rabbit trails, but you freely choose to do it, yes.

And God knows it, right? Yes. So then you're not really going to choose anything else, right? So then it's not a choice, not an issue of not being able to choose because you're the one who restricts your own choice.

You see? Let me go. Okay. So what compatibilism is, is the view that our freedom of will and our freedom of choice is compatible with God's sovereignty, that we still retain freedom under God's sovereignty.

Libertarianism would say that's not the case. You can't be free. So we have to have libertarian free will, that God is not the one.

I call libertarianism non -compatibilism in that the freedom of will is not compatible with God's strict predestination.

There must be a level of distance between where we're just being free.

Well, this carries over into the idea that the unbeliever is now free to some degree, there's some forms of libertarianism by which the person is able to freely choose

God. And compatibilism would say, no, you're not really able to choose God as an unbeliever because you're a slave of sin,

Romans 6, 14 through 20, a hater of God who does no good, Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12. You cannot receive spiritual things, 1

Corinthians 2 .14, which is why you have to be granted belief, Philippians 1 .29, granted repentance, 2

Timothy 2 .25, because to be born again, 1 Peter 1 .3, appointed to eternal life, Acts 13 .48,

etc. So I say, furthermore, Jesus said in John 5 .19

and John 5 .30, we've gone over this before, I said, he says that he could do nothing of his own initiative.

He could only do what he sees a father doing, yet Jesus had free will, yet he could only do what he saw the father do, and he could do nothing of his own initiative, which means his freedom was completely compatible with God's predestining work of sending the

Son. There's compatibilism right there, okay?

That make sense? No? Okay. It's all new.

You're tired, I can tell. Yeah. Now, Dave over there, he's not getting any of it.

He's just, he, yeah, because he doesn't have that ability. Once I asked him two questions in a row, it was, yeah, he slobbered out and came to, yeah, it's bad.

Okay, let's see. How can we argue that God is fair if we agree that he predestined people to hell before they're ever born?

Well, if you don't like it, take Romans 9, 9 to 23 out of the Bible. Also take Ephesians 1 .4

through 11 out of the Bible. Take Proverbs 14 .6 out of the Bible. Just wipe them out.

And those are some of the verses. And if the idea that God predestined them to hell, does he not have the right to do with his creation as he desires?

Yes, he does. So what I'm going to do now is go to Romans chapter 9, and Romans chapter 9, which is a muy gudo chapter.

Muy gudo, which would be in Spanish. What's that?

Proper Spanish too. Actually, I'm being taught proper Spanish now with Carlos from Colombia.

We're going through justificacion es la declaracion de

Dios por lo que, and I have to learn all this stuff. Oh, yeah, yeah. Okay.

So I'm going to go through Romans 9 a little bit because it answers the question, starting at verse 9. I'm going to go through it quickly.

For this is the word of promise, at this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this, but there was

Rebekah also when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac. For though the twins were not yet born, had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand, not because of works, but because of him who calls.

It was said to her, the older will serve the younger, just as it is written, Jacob I love, but Esau I hated. So it doesn't depend on their works, doesn't depend on anything that you would see, period, based on God's choice alone.

That's it. If you don't like it, we could, I can get the Arminian free will

Bible and we can get the Ronco eraser and just wipe out those verses out of the

Arminian free will Bible. Okay. That doesn't fit. We just take that right out of there. Okay.

Now people will say to me, let's see if you understand the text, because is that fair?

Wait a minute. Is that fair that God would love one and hate another and they did nothing?

He's God. He's God. They're judging God with their own. What they say.

So here's the thing, verse 14. Well, what shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is it?

Is there? May never be. Cause that's the question. Oh, wait a minute. That's not right. That's not fair.

You're understanding exactly what Paul's teaching, because he asked, he asked the same question, not in the exact same words, but he's asked.

That's not fair. If you're going to say one's going to love, he's going to love one and not, not because of works, not because of anything in them, but because of his purpose.

They come, I love these, I hate it. Well, that's not fair. You'll say to me then, well, there's no injustice with God, is there?

May never be. That means you're understanding what he's saying. If you don't ask the same question, you don't understand the text.

For he says to Moses, verse 15, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy of compassion, on whom

I have compassion. The word whom in Greek is in a singular, not plural as in a group of people. Some people want to say he's going to love the people of Israel.

No, it's a singular individual. So then it does not depend on the man, singular, who wills or the man who runs, but upon God who has mercy.

What does not depend? On whom God loves and whom he hates. So then it does not depend upon the man who wills or the man who runs.

It's not about national Israel, it's about individuals. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, not

Israel, not Egypt, Pharaoh, that single individual, for this very purpose,

I raised you up to demonstrate my power in you, singular, that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.

So then he has mercy on whom, singular, he desires and he hardens whom he desires.

You'll say to me then, well, then why does he still find fault? Then why does he blame people if he's the one doing this?

Right? If you don't ask that question, you don't understand what Paul's teaching. But if you do ask the question, then you understand what he's teaching.

And if you understand what he's teaching, you got to believe it. You'll say to me then, well, why does he still find fault for who resists his will?

Verse 20, on the contrary, who are you, oh man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, why did you make me like this?

Will it, or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

And he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom he also called not for among the

Jews only, but also for among the Gentiles. He's talking about calling election creation.

He has a right to do it. This is very difficult for a lot of people because they don't like it.

And I have, I've dealt with a lot of people over the years who say, it's talking about the nation of Israel.

It's clearly not talking about the nation of Israel because it says Pharaoh, the man and vessels.

And I did a research on the, on the term vessels in the context here and how it's used. It always means individuals. I did the research on it.

So what's happening here is that God is demonstrating his sovereignty over individuals. People say, well,

God, they'll see me. Well, God wouldn't do that with individuals. Yes, he would go to, I think it's Acts 9, 15, where I think that's what the verse is.

Let's see. Last one. There's an Armenian. Okay. Last one.

There's an hour. You're you're last too late. You're nine 15. You're last one. All right.

That's not fair. Okay. You'll see it. It'd be then. Well, why does he say that stupid stuff? Okay. So acts 9, 15, talking about Paul, the apostle and God says, go for, he is a chosen instrument of mine.

Chosen instrument. He's elected. He's been chosen. That's what election. That's what chose choosing is.

So Paul, the individual, the chosen instrument of mine to bear a name before the Gentiles. God does elect individuals.

He does choose individuals. Okay. Let's see if we've got any more questions.

Uh, how, if Calvinism is true, how do you explain the theory, the story of the particle son got that how to make sense of love cooperation with God without libertarian free will.

It's loving that God would save any of us. What does sovereignty mean? Sovereignty means that God has the right to do as he desires with his creation.

How can we argue that God is fair to people to hell before they were born? Okay. Okay. Am I answering your question sufficiently?

What? Yeah. So if you had to argue the Armenian side, what's the verse you would use against John three 16, he loves the world at whoever game.

See, it means whoever that means it's up to your free will choice, but it's, whosoever's not there.

That's yeah. I mean, as we'll go through or choose this day, whom you will serve when God's speaking to Israel. And that's bad because it's talking about covenantal

Israel already, not talking about new Testament regeneration. And if you listen, you can hear ripping sounds of Armenians taking verses out of context.

You know, I did that before. I've done it on, uh, on the radio. I did that. Oh, I did that.

And I did the one, my first time I ever did it on the radio. I'm still a member of this. It just flashed in my mind when somebody's talking to me on the radio when

I was over in the Boise office. And, uh, it was just what they're saying just made no sense.

And they're just, just abiding in nonsense. And I said, take your right hand and put it in front of your face and, and, um, make it straight and then put it, make sure it's vertical.

So the palms are left. Okay. Are you doing that? Yes. Okay. I looked to your left. Are you looking to your left? Yes. Good.

Now slap yourself aside the head. You know, whatever guy did it, but this guy goes, you're such an immature.

You're so immature. You're so stupid. I was laughing. And one guy actually did it.

Yeah. And another time, I love this one too. I have a friend named

Ken Cook and he's like six foot 50 and like 800 pounds. And whenever he goes, he's in Oregon.

And whenever he goes walking by himself, Sasquatch sightings reports go up. All right. And, uh, he just comes home and then they did, they diminish.

And his wife is like, uh, like five, six, five, five. All right.

So imagine that. So Ken calls me up on the radio one day and, uh,

Courtney, his wife is in the background and he's asked me a question. I'm discussing stuff for the theology and I could hear

Courtney and I go, is that Courtney back there? Cause I've been over his house and stuff. He goes, he goes, yeah, it's me. I can hear you.

I said, Hey, Courtney. Yeah. Good. Are you behind Ken? Yeah. Okay.

You're right behind him. Right. Okay. What I want you to do, you're going to do, I want you to do something. Okay. I want you to slap him upside the head and you hear, it was hilarious.

People were laughing and I'm laughing and he can't go that hurt. And I go, do it again.

Swag live radio.

And for days people were telling me that was so funny. They go, yeah. If you do the difference in sizes, you'd make it even more funny.

But like a dude, super stuff on the radio, but I get serious. Then I got to break the ice a little bit. Soundboard slap.

I like, I always thought that stuff was fake though. I didn't like the real stuff, you know, but you know, that's fine.

I do. Okay. Anyway, does God love everyone on Calvinism? Does God love everyone?

Go to the Bible, go to Psalm five, five, Psalm 11, five. God hates all who do iniquity.

Jacob. I loved. He saw. He hated Romans nine, nine to 13. Okay. How can he love everyone?

If you believe that God does not love everyone at the same time because he doesn't love everyone at the same time, he hates all who do iniquity.

Psalm five. He just hates him. Psalm 11, five. You can go read that.

It's what it says. Now, when it says he loves the world and John three 16 is a generic kind of a love.

The generic kind of a love is spoken of. And he, in the Matthews five, 43 through 48, and you've got to recheck this out.

And there, that's how he loves everybody because he loves everybody in a providential way, not in a saving way.

Because when it says in Matthew five, 43, if you love your neighbor and you love them and you love everybody, you love yourself.

You know, what good is that for God sends the rain on the good and the bad. That's the sun, the sunshine on the good and the bad.

Therefore be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. He's talking about loving. Do you love everybody equally? And God does that in that general sense of providence, but he does not love them in a saving way, love them in the way to save them specifically.

So when God says God so loved the world, it just means all the nation groups and all the peoples, not just a nation of Israel.

That's what's going on there. Question are getting to be same. You can close. Okay. Questions are going to be the same.

All right. Yeah, we can close because it's been two hours. I know that you guys are probably getting tired.

Okay. Before we close. So what do you want to talk about next week? We could do pneumatology, which is a study of the

Holy Spirit. We could do deprescotology and go through our millennialism stuff.

We could do baptism and I can go through various aspects of baptism and discuss baptismal issues and show you things in the

Bible about baptism, how it's used in different ways. Okay. Baptism then.

Do you want to do that? What do you want, Mike? You're going to still be here? Are you leaving

Sunday? That can't be true.

All right. Okay. So we'll do baptism. We'll just do baptism next. And we've got theological topics we can go through.

So let me ask you, was this interesting tonight? Yes. You see how it's all related? So Christology is related to soteriology and theology, the doctrine of God is related to the incarnation and the law is related to God's character as is a sacrifice.

See how they're connected. See how everything's connected. Okay. And in order to graduate from this class, you have to repeat all the concepts.

You don't have to have all the scriptures memorized. That would be not fair, but you had to go to all the concepts and have it all down.

Okay. Yeah. Get right on that. That's what she says. Okay. Well, I'm going to pray then.

Okay. And I'll stay on if anybody wants it, whatever. We'll just keep the video on.

Lord Jesus, thank you for tonight. I thank you, Lord, for your great mercy to us and the wisdom and the power that you have shown us in your word and ask

Lord that you would bless all the hearers, all the listeners, and that they would grow closer to you as they see your glory.

And as we learn about your love and the condescension that you have undertaken in order to redeem us, that your great love for us,

Lord, we thank you. We praise you and ask Jesus for blessing on our time next week as well.

We look to you, Jesus. We give you thanks. We ask it in your name. Amen. Oh, she does.

Yeah. She just, how do you know that she called you? All right. Oh, I forgot that's her water right there.

Did you forget to take her for water earlier? All right.

I'm back. So let's see how it is in the room here.

We've got 34 people staying. So I'll keep it on for a while. We can talk about whatever you guys want to talk about.

Oh, I did that and then put it back in there. You're heading out.

Okay. How about audio, Matt? You're going to invite anybody in the room?

Apparently he doesn't have the audio. Okay. Between what?

Between iniquity and sin. Because you said, like some people say, oh,

I don't sin anymore. But then you were saying that, that God doesn't accept those with iniquity.

Iniquity, transgression, sin are very similar. I think they're just different words used synonymously.

See you, Joe. God bless. You just use synonymously. Hey, did you tell him what you got for a mother's day for the baby shower?

Tell him what you got for the baby shower and a big baby shower. And he got all kinds of stuff. And so on our invitation,

I said, don't bring a card, bring a book. So Matt had this idea to get our little baby girl.

Actually, actually it was Nick's idea. Yeah. And I went, oh, perfect. You know, she got a kick out of it.

So yeah, she thought she'd like that. And I go, she go, what would be a good book? I said, systematic. That's what it was.

She said, let's get him a book. I said, she said, what? I go systematic theology. So that's what it was. You like it, huh?

All right. I hope your baby grows up liking it. There you go.

Grudem systematic. Yeah. All right. So iniquity and transgression and sin are all synonymous words used interchangeably in the scriptures.

And they basically mean the same thing. Transgression has more of the idea of, of breaking an actual law, but that's also what sin is.

And iniquity is just basic unrighteousness, but they're synonymous.

That's a good question though. So you're going back to Minnesota?

Eventually. Yeah. I'm flying back to Delaware. I'm driving back to Minnesota. Oh, okay.

Wow. That's quite a drive. Yeah. That'd be nice though. So have you ever heard any of this kind of stuff?

It's real heady. I don't, David, I feel like, um, uh, like I, I know about first aid and then

I'm listening to a brain surgeon telling me how to do brain surgery, which is like all the terminology and parts.

Yeah. It's tough. Yeah. And, um, hold on a minute.

Get this, this Charlie Colin. I got to make, probably just turn this thing off if he wants. Yeah. The thing is that it takes a while to come on.

Let's try this. Is that you? Whatever.

Um, you got to hear it a few times, several times before it starts settling in.

So I was teaching Bible studies. I would say, I'd say, look, if you come here for five or six months, you'll get it after about then it's just what it takes.

Cause there is a lot of stuff. It's a lot. Hey, what's up? Hey, I was just wondering, are you going to engage people in the stream yard?

I mean, we can hear your audio. If, if yeah, I can't see it from here, but, um, if, if, uh, you want to copy and paste it into the phone or you want to just type things in,

I can, well, I'm getting called away for a few moments, but I'll be right back and I can try doing that.

Yeah. Okay. If Laura's there, she can do the same thing if they want, but I'll see if I can get on my phone again.

Try it that way. Okay. Yeah. Just mute your mic on the phone and we won't get a loop back.

Okay. Sounds good. Okay. All right. I'll get back in. So yeah, it's just, it just, it takes time and, um,

I would teach Bible studies. I'd say to people at first it's what? And then the second time through you start hearing it, you go, okay,

I got that one. And then it starts coming together. And then it becomes, um, becomes just a lot better and it's worth it.

But it, uh, it does take a lot. It does. Sorry, but it does. I've been doing this for 41 years.

So that's rock and I know it. And I'm still learning stuff, man. I am.

Kept in the stream yard. That makes me feel better. No, when

I, when I first, uh, came across Romans with that, it, it, it rocked my world with that.

And it's, it took me a long time with that. The first question I asked her was like, I'm reading

Jacob Esau. I don't like this. And that's where he said, he goes, you're understanding what the textiles and he said, read further.

And I was listening to, uh, God bless you, Mike. Nice meeting you. All right.

Okay. I was listening to, uh, uh, Jeff Durbin where he was talking about, uh, the question between, uh, uh,

Jacob, the question shouldn't be why one was chosen over the other. You said the question should be, why did he choose 81 to begin with?

That's right. That's right. Oh, okay.

That's no biggie. It's all right. Okay. You can type,

I can read stuff. Now what you guys are saying in the text, David Neff is there as Matt yester in here.

It says Matt yester. Oh, Hey, there's Matt yester down there. Join the discord server. If you haven't done so yet, which discord server mine and one stream yard link.

Uh, let's see. Let's see if I can put the stream yard link in here. Let's see if this works.

What light it'll get lighter for longer till 10 o 'clock, 10 30 at night here.

You know that one? Well, no, I was, I was comparing it to Alaska. Oh, I could see this going on in Anchorage, Alaska because nine o 'clock there, it looks like it's five o 'clock.

And I remember we were pulled up for like a, like Juno in Anchorage for like for the first time and it seemed like the day was just going on forever.

And there's one of my, uh, uh, one of my friends with that, uh, with the, she, she started looking at her watch and she tapped it.

And then she goes, hold on a second guys. And she walked into a McDonald's, came running back out and her face was like white with that.

And she goes, what time does the ship leave? And I said, it's five 30. She, and she got even pale. She goes, we have to go now.

And so we got, we got back to the, to the ship right as it was getting ready to leave. There we go.

All right. Now I'm in hope you guys can hear me. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can you hear us?

Hey, Matt. Yes, sir. Come on in buddy. Hear me, Matt. Matt, can you hear me?

Remove me from there? Right. Can you, let's see if I can hear you guys. Hold on one sec.

Matt, can you hear me? He's adjusting his audio now. Now I can. All right.

Yeah. Matt, can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, good. First of all, I really enjoyed the study.

I hope everything went fine, but yeah, I wanted to discuss Calvinism with you if that's okay.

Sure. Yeah. So let's start with this. Do you believe that God loves all people in what sense?

Okay. But look, it's a straightforward question, right? Do you believe that God loves all people in a generic providential sense?

Yes. I'd imagine 45, 42 to 48. Okay. Do you believe that if God loves people, he wants the best for them to a point?

What does that mean? So you see, you're making a mistake.

You're saying it's the best for them because they're not the standard of what should be or should not be done. The issue is what does

God want for them? Not the best for them. What does God want? Because he ordained some to hell.

Okay, but how is that love? Well, you said, does he love everybody? And I'm telling you in a generic providential sense he does, which is why

I asked you the question. What do you mean? Okay. So the Bible makes it clear that God's love is expressed by his desire that none should perish.

Now, I'll finish in a second. I'll finish in a second. So the reason why

I have a problem with this is because it redefines what love is, where we can say, oh,

God can still love people if he wants them to go to hell. But secondly, and more importantly, even if we forsake this problem, there is the biblical problem.

The Bible redefines. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Just a second. Let me finish. No, no, no. You're making false premise, obvious problem.

There is no obvious problem. You don't even know what biblical love is. Okay, but can I finish? So the Bible makes it clear that God's love is expressed in his desire that none should perish.

Okay. So this is found. But I'll bring the verse. In 2

Peter 3, 9, it's defined that God's love is expressed in the

None should perish. Okay. What does it say there? That God desires that none should perish.

He's longsuffering and desires that none should perish. Where does it say that his love means that he doesn't want anyone to perish?

You just misread the text. I don't understand. Longsuffering is just another word for love.

No it's not. I mean, uh, first Corinthians literally says that love is longsuffering.

Yeah, it's talking about the very nature of love in the whole bit. Okay, good. You got to be careful.

You got to be careful here. All right. If God, you see what God wants someone to be saved. You haven't even defined what love is.

Love is whatever Paul defines in first Corinthians chapter 13. Okay.

Love is that. So that's, is that agape love? Presumably.

So wait a minute. Why do the Pharisees agape their high seats? Jesus says in Luke 11, I think 43.

I don't know what that means, but to reach the topic, I mean, second Peter three, nine says clearly that God wants all to be saved.

Yeah. No, God's all, but more, just a second, I'll be done in a second.

I'm not trying to overtake him. I'm just going to get it out. And I'm going to shut up for like 10 minutes. I know this guy. We've been talking to him. Yeah. We, I love

Matt, but here's the point. Second Peter three, nine says defines, okay. Longsuffering is expressed how?

He desires none to perish, sorry, all to be safe for first. Okay. Now, second, we understand that love is long suffering.

Now we make the obvious conclusion here. Love is long suffering. Long suffering is the desire that none should be safe.

So now do you believe that God loves all? If he loves all, does that mean he's long suffering to all?

And if he's long suffering to all, does that mean that he desires that none should perish? Psalm 5, 5,

Psalm 5, 5, Psalm 5, 11 says, God hates all who do iniquity. He abhors them. Exactly.

So, so then if he, can he love them and hate them at the same time? No, but once again, he desires, okay, just a second, but you say he loves everybody.

I'm sure that's not the case. You're not getting the biblical theology, right? But Psalm 5, 5 actually contradicts the

Calvinist case because what it says is that people who do iniquity are those who are hated.

People who have their own free will choose to do iniquity. Not people. It's exactly what

Calvinism teaches. No, Calvinism doesn't, sorry, but you don't teach. I know what Calvinism teaches.

I won't, I won't, I won't correct you on what Calvinism teaches, but I'm going to ask you, do you believe, okay, do you believe that God loves everybody?

In the generic providential sense out of Matthew 5, you know, as answering you,

Matthew 5, 43 to 48, the answer is yes. He provides sun and rain and et cetera for everybody.

That's how he loves everybody. Does God desire that none should perish? That's what it says in Romans 3, 9, yeah.

But for all, but he says, what does it say in Romans 3, 9, what does it say? No, it's 2 Peter 3, 9, 2

Peter 3, 9, right. What does it say there? That he desires that none should perish, but all be saved, but all be saved, right?

Yeah. Okay. So here's a question for you. Can God desire one thing and arrange another?

Why does that matter? Because it's relevant to the issue. I'll answer it.

I'll answer it. No problem. So are you saying, can God, can God desire one thing and arrange the other thing?

That would seem to be contradictory, no. Then why does Jesus speak in parables in Mark 4, 10 through 12, when they ask him why he speaks in parables and he says, so people will not get saved.

If he wants all to be saved, why does he speak in parables? So some will not be saved. Okay. But we draw the difference between what

God knows will happen from what God predestines to happen. So for example, No, no, no. Don't be an open theist here.

I'm not an open theist. I'm not an open theist. Okay. Or a Mullinist. All right. But I'm just saying, you have to reconcile the issues.

If he wants all to be saved, who's the all? All people.

How do you know that? Because that's what all means. Does it?

Yeah. So all means all people. So when all the world is taxed, does it mean the people, when that happened, when he decreed for all the world to be taxed, does that mean the people in Africa and Australia, New Zealand were also taxed?

What does that have to do with this verse? I don't understand. Because you said all means what it means. Take your right hand and put it in front of your face real fast.

I know. Now, so you just said all means what it means. I'm telling you, you know, if you think all means every individual,

I'm showing you that all doesn't mean every individual in different contexts. I have a study on it on this really good website called

CARM. Yeah. I love it. There's the article right there for him, Matt, and the link. So he's got it if he wants to look at it.

You're right. Thanks. But just let's just try a verse, not even a verse, not wishing that any should perish, but all should reach repentance.

So does God wish that there is at least one person who should perish? Yes. Sorry?

Yeah. So there is someone that God wishes should perish? Yes. Why? Because that's what he says.

If you go to 1 Samuel 3, 14, God says, why are we jumping through different verses?

Why can't we just ask me? I'm giving you the answer. Can we stay for the New Testament at least?

Like, I'm not I'm not asking that we stay to this. I'm giving you the answers. OK, OK. Go ahead.

One minute. God says that the iniquities of Eli's house will not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.

So God's desire that Eli's house not be atoned for. So what does it mean when

Jesus says that he wants all to be or Paul says he wants all Peter wants all to be saved? What's he mean by the phrase?

You're not answering the question. But just like you guys are talking, it's just very I want to listen to your guys conversation as my brain.

Oh, sorry. You can go anywhere. I don't want to take it. Oh, no, they were talking there because they're getting involved.

That's good. But my because of my autism, whenever someone starts talking, my brain wants to go, what are they saying?

So first of all, two things. One is I completely object to this interpretation that Calvinists have where they, for some reason, think that either

God knows all things will happen. Or the open theism is true, but there is a middle option, right?

The middle option is that God knows everything, OK? What people will choose.

But God doesn't predestine everything, OK? So, for example, on the Thomistic, that's not biblical.

Wait, just a second. You said that God said, OK, that Eli's house won't continue forever. Now, you have your interpretation, which is that,

OK, God preordained. But another interpretation is God simply knew what people would choose of their free will and that simply predicted the consequences.

That's one. Now, how did he know? How did he know that? But what do you mean? How did he know that? Are you just saying that libertarian free will is not reconcilable with God's foreknowledge?

I said, how do you know? What's it mean? He knew that. How did God know all that? Did he look into the future to see what would happen?

Yes, God has knowledge of the future. OK, does he? So did he learn from looking into the future?

I don't know what that means. God always knew what would happen in the future. Because look, you've got to think.

If God learns from looking into the future, that would be a libertarian necessity because he couldn't know what they're going to do beforehand, lest they not be able to do anything different when the time comes.

So libertarian free will is a soft form of open theism. Well, no, that's not correct.

But more importantly, we believe in divine simplicity. So we believe that God always had that knowledge.

I mean, there was no point at which... You say God wants everyone to be saved. Why would

Jesus speak in parables so they will not be saved, Mark 4, 10 through 12? Why would he do that then? So that only people who really cared would come and interpret his message?

That's not what it says. I understand. He says specifically, they say, why do you speak in parables?

And he says, so they will not return lest they be forgiven. I mean, you have to look, what you guys do is you don't ask the right questions.

And I started asking the questions for you. Well, wait a minute, if he wants everyone to be saved and you think all means every individual ever lived, then why is it

Jacob? I love this. I hate it. Based nothing on what they did. Romans 9, 9 to 13. Why would

Eli's house never be atoned for? First Samuel 3, 14. Because Jesus, I mean,

God declared it would never be atoned for. If they're not atoned for, then they can't be saved. This is before the atoning work.

And also, why would he also say in Mark 4, 10 through 12, why would he say that he speaks in parables?

And the answer is so that people will not be saved. But the whole point of Christ's message seems to be that he wants people to be saved.

But the interpretation is that no, actually, he actively desires that even the majority of people perish.

I mean, you just said that there is at least at the very least one person that he wants to perish.

At least, yeah. He hates all who do iniquity. Psalm 5, 5, Psalm 11, 5. We agree with that.

We agree that people who choose of their own free will to do iniquity, God hates because he hates iniquity.

We don't disagree with it. He said he loved everybody. No, but you're saying that God hates people not based on what they do.

That's the big difference. Well, wait a minute. You mean God just loves everybody just because?

No, like, OK, so our position is that God's God, Jacob, I love you, so I hate it, not based on anything they would do.

So you're just refuted by Romans 9, 9 to 13. God's default right hand. Put it closer to your face.

But God's default is to love the creation. OK, God says that all of creation is good.

Now, what you're saying is that God's creation isn't good and perfect. That's not what

I'm saying. Don't put words in my mouth. But then you're saying that hell is perfect. Hell is part of perfection. Well, hell was created for the angels where you're going to go if you don't repent of your false doctrine in Catholicism.

I keep warning you about this. But that's not engaging with the problem. The problem is that you believe that God's creation isn't perfect because you believe.

Yeah, yeah. I never said God's creation was perfect. I said God's creation was good and it fell.

OK, but do you believe that fall was preordained by God? Of course it was. Then God works all things.

Ephesians 1 .11, God works all things after the counsel of his will. You don't think it happened by accident, do you? No, no, no, no, no.

This is the problem. These are ambiguous verses. These don't mean what you think. This is the problem that I have.

Look, you're saying that God's got a big problem. Wait, just a second. You're saying that God's creation is perfect, right?

OK, I'm sorry. I don't mean to keep talking. You go ahead. Sorry. Say, OK, go ahead.

Yeah. So here's the problem, right? The problem that I see, I have no problem with Matt. Matt and I are good friends.

I don't mean to, like, come across. Hold on, Jack Johnson. God hates babies that never do anything wrong or by any standard.

The Bible says we are by nature children of wrath, Ephesians 2 .3. If any babies are saved, it's because of the love of God upon them.

And if you want to say babies have never done anything wrong. How do you know no babies have ever done anything wrong?

How do you know that? Jack Johnson, do not think emotionally. Think critically.

OK, now I happen to believe all babies who die go to heaven. But you've got to be careful what you say. Anyway, go ahead.

So you believe that God's creation is perfect, right? No, I don't believe it's perfect.

OK, good. Because we haven't defined what that means. It's good. And yet it's fallen. OK, good. All right.

But just second, is it fallen because of what the creation chose to do or is it falling because of what

God did? It's fallen because of what Adam did. Don't you read the Bible?

Yeah, but you disagree with that. You just said that Adam's fall was preordained by God. So God preordained.

Dude, we keep having this conversation and you keep not learning. You close your mind.

I've gone over ordination for ordination, predestination, determination. I've gone over libertarian free will, compatibilist free will with you.

And you keep going back to the same thing. Let's make it more clear. Did God desire for Adam to fall?

What do you mean by desire? What sense? OK, did he want God to fall? Sorry, Adam to fall.

In what sense? What sense is there of desire? Something creative. OK, well, you don't understand.

OK, the thing is, God can have different levels of desire. He can have what's called a decretive will.

Now, I understand that. I understand that. Yeah, I agree. But and he can have a prescriptive will where he says thou shalt not lie.

And he can have a permissive will where he wills to allow you to lie.

But lying can only occur because by God's permission. So it's within his plan to allow you to do that because he works all things after the counsel of his will,

Ephesians 1 .11. So God wanted Adam and Eve to sin in the permissive will sense, but not in the prescriptive will sense.

OK, good. So God has decretive will. That's understandable.

In his decretive will, he didn't want Adam to sin. OK, now God also has the permissive will.

But these are all wills. Now I'm asking you, does God have desires? Of course he has desires.

OK, good. Now I'm talking about a desire, not in the sense of a will, but something that God actually actually wants and desires.

Does God want Adam to fall? Did God want it? In what sense? Prescriptively?

Did God intend Adam to sin? What do you mean by intention? Prescriptively or permissively?

What is prescriptive intention? He intends people to obey his law.

Don't lie. He also intends to permit people to disobey his law. How is that not just conflicting with himself?

You know, we go through this. I keep answering the same questions. You keep going back to the same stuff.

I've gone over this so many times. All right, fine. Let's not go over the same same thing. Let's go back to the second

Peter 3 .9 pretty quickly. Yeah, second Peter 3 .9. So can we walk through that text? But just a second.

Just a second. Do you believe that it's correct that God doesn't desire that any should perish?

What second Peter 3 .9 says, I agree with. OK, good. So you believe that it is part of God's whatever will that none shall perish, correct?

He says not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. Yeah, I have no problem with that.

Right. Good. So that then then you can't be a consistent Calvinist, right? Then what?

But then you can't be, but then you can't be a consistent Calvinist. Oh, you know what? I think you got a good point there.

I've never read that verse before in all my 30 some odd years of defending Calvinism and in seminary, those were the, one of the verses that are blacked out in our

Bible, so we wouldn't be faced with a difficulty. So maybe you've just disproved Calvinism with that single verse that I've never thought about before.

There's an antecedent before any and all. What is it, CC? Sorry, Matt.

Uh, yes, sir. This time I can't hear you. Could you come closer? Can't hear me? Okay. In second

Peter 3 .9, before the words, before the words, before the words, any and all are brought up, there's a antecedent that that is referring to.

Who is, who's that referring to? The end of all. You read the verse.

Yeah. Dear friends. This is now my second letter to you. No, second Peter 3 .9. When you read the verse.

Yeah. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promises. Some understand slow is that he's patient with you.

Not wanting anyone to wait with who he's patient with you.

Who's do you, uh, the people previous verse, previous verse.

Remember you read stuff in context, you chop up and read the last half of the verse, but do not forget.

Okay. But do not forget this one thing to your friends with a dear friends. Who's he speaking to?

Dear friends, the people, the people he's writing to, right? Yeah. So he's, you know, the translator, some translations say the beloved, do not let someone escape the fact your nose beloved with the

Lord. Cause he's already brought them up in second Peter three, one people. He's writing the letter to, he's saying, now this is the second letter

I'm writing to you. Starting up in your conscious by way of reminder, blah, blah, blah. Then he brings up the mockers.

These people are going to come in the latter times. Then he shifts to the mockers. Then he ships back to the beloved again, doesn't he?

So now the beloved is in the context. There's an antecedent to the ending of the all. That's who he's speaking to.

This is why he's delaying his coming. So that all of the beloved from all times and all places that are elect will be drawn in, but you already have the destruction of Vaughn Gulley men in second

Peter three, seven. So you say desire, God desires every single person you say that you have the destruction of Vaughn Gulley men versus prior, but you're saying that God doesn't fire, but are you saying you're defining the any and the all is every single person who ever lived the verse itself doesn't even teach that because you only read the last quarter of the verse, you read in every single person who ever lived when the verse itself says it's the you or to us word, and that's been defined by the previous verse because he brings up the beloved again.

All right. So do you believe both? Do you, do you believe that God desires people to parent?

No, you're not addressing what I just brought up to you regarding this verse, you're ignoring it. I'm hitting you head on because you keep just slicing it up and just saying any and all just assumes every single person who ever lived.

I'm showing you. That's not the case. That's fine. So, so are you saying, so you're saying that the verse is saying that all of the beloved should, uh, that is exactly right up there.

If you ignore antecedents, you're going to read into it. Every single person who ever lives. He's awesome.

Okay. So you're saying we're going to walk through that text and not leave stuff into it.

You can't look at a verse in a vacuum or at least half a verse in a vacuum. Okay. Okay.

You need to be honest with what the text is saying, who's writing to all or the elect.

Okay, good. So are you saying, so Matt's like, are you saying that, um, then God, uh, isn't in here.

So are you, are you saying that the beloved are not, uh, people who, for example, choose to put their faith in Christ, but rather people that God himself.

Okay. You're knitting second period three nine is not talking about every single person who ever lived in Canadian Catholic. Sounds like you're conceding that point.

Canadian Catholics argument disintegrated. As soon as it came out of his mouth, when you wrote the whole, read the whole verse is misquoting a portion of text and leaving out the antecedent defies any kind of hermeneutic.

I mean, this is just craziness, right? Just wait just a second. Let's try it. I can see the thing is you can say, yeah, it's all right.

Yeah. If you want to say that all means every individual who ever lived, it can't work. It's impossible for that meaning because there are plenty of scriptures that show that it's not possible.

Therefore you have to ask the question, what does he mean by the word? All the, all has to do with the beloved, the elect, the chosen ones.

They won't fail. It's two verses right there. Second period, three, eight, two period, three, nine. You cannot divorce those two verses from each other.

I'm willing to work with that. I'm fine. But let's try this. Let's try. What do you mean work? It's either you admit the text is saying that, or you have an exegetical rebuttal to say,

Matt, you're reading something to the text. You didn't, but what I said, I'm not saying you're reading into it.

Okay. That's one possible. Am I correct in my understanding or not? Well, I disagree, but I'm good.

Good grief. You can say you disagree, but notice there's no substantive rebuttal to what

I said. You disagree for what reason? What you're just eisegesis doesn't overthrow when

I put it in its actual context, so you still disagree because you're holding on to your eisegetical interpretation.

What's your cogent rebuttal to my position that I just laid out? Show me exegetically from the text. Can you do so?

Yeah, I could, because you've been hammering this home, and it went way off a second P39 to, like, 50 different things.

Let's bring it back to the original assertion you made, because you were misreading that text from step one, weren't you?

Is that correct or not? Well, I don't think that I've been misreading it.

Okay. Can you show me? Well, I just corrected you. You said the any or the all is at the end.

The antecedent to that is any. Now, you're saying those are ambiguous, or you're just assuming that means everyone ever lived.

But the context that the verse itself says is toward you, and there's an antecedent to that verse.

He's talking to the beloved. The context did shift because I said he starts off talking about them in the beginning.

He says there's going to be these other people. He shifts to the mockers who are not the beloved. They're going to come in the latter times.

He's going to be the destruction of all godly men. Then he says, now I'm coming back to you, beloved. Second, period three eight, correct.

Yeah, he's telling the beloved who people desire to save. Is that the us he's speaking of?

Sorry. Second, period three nine, because he brought him up in second period three eight, the direct antecedent verse, the previous sentence when he brings up the us in second period three nine before the any and the all that us is referring to the beloved, right?

Yes, that's correct. So that's the finding the any and the all, because that's the right the antecedent to the any and the all.

Correct. No. Okay. How is it not to direct the antecedent of any at all in second period three nine, can you please explain that to us?

Because he's explaining to beloved who God is willing to, who God is patient towards, he says he's patient toward you.

Okay, good. Yeah. He's the contest. Who is the, what is the direct antecedent of the, of the you there?

Previous verse tells us that he's shifted it to the beloved. He's addressing them. So when he's addressing the beloved and, you know, he shifted to that and then he says toward you, you already know, he shifted to the beloved and then he says the words to you, to his audience.

Okay. How's that? Not the beloved. Simple. This is a simple way to rebut this is just by explaining that the beloved he is writing to our people who he believes have already repented.

We agree. Can I just finish just a second? Address why specifically brought up.

Don't say, I agree with you. He's talking to beloved here. I go, we've already both admitted that, but that overthrows your eisegesis of the last quarter of the verse.

Can I explain? Okay. So the last part cannot be referring to just the beloved because the rebuttal, can

I finish? Okay. Because the beloved are people who have repented, but here he is saying that the people that who he desires to save are people that have not yet come to repentance.

So it's the left. Well, that's why he's delaying his coming so that they'll be drawn in. Yeah. But the letter is written to the specific beloved, the people that will receive the letter, not to all the referring.

Guess what? He's recomposing the eschaton here. Amy. In the latter days, mockers will come with their mocking.

He's regarding the future. So this is encompassing from that point onwards.

This is why he's delaying his coming. So all the beloved will be drawn in. We got to get, you know, we can go to Romans eight, the golden chain of redemption, those who meet four new, you predestined the predestined are eventually glorified.

It's showing these are all God's actions. Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? That says all

Christians from all ages, even yet those who still need to come into existence.

This is all about at the eschaton or at the last day. This is why he's delaying his coming.

When he comes, that's the end. There's still a lot to be drawn in. Of course, these people have, he's writing to him and he's showing

God's sovereignty over what is still yet to come here. He's not just saying, well, just at this point right now, he's already invoked the future in the previous context.

So that doesn't work. That's your last ditch effort to try and get around this tax in this context.

See all the haranguing you got to do because you interpret the last part of the verse wrong and totally chopped it in half, only looked at one latter half of the verse and import stuff into it when the previous part of the verse tells you who it's addressing.

Now you can't go everywhere else, but stick with this context until you admit you're wrong on this tax leapfrogging off the 50 different things, but Matt Slick, and you brought up this text first thing.

You should be nailed down on this first and foremost, right? Before you use it as your launching pad, you only quoted half of the verse.

What's that? Yeah, I think,

I think there's a response Canadian. Yeah. I mean, I think there is a, that's a very problematic interpretation to be honest, because, um, it's just simply seems to, uh, and you got to actually rebut why

I didn't hear anything about the previous verses or anything like that brought up. Okay.

So you're saying that this is saying that the Lord, uh, does not will for any of the beloved to perish, but for all to come to repentance, that is dramatically, statistically correct.

Okay. But this can't be correct because the people he's writing to, he's already assuming that they are repentant.

The people, okay. We all agreed on that. He brings up. Okay. But just second, his will is for all to come to repentance.

Well, it's already can't, but it already can't be people that are already repented, right? It should be referring to people.

I never said that, but the beloved did come to repentance. So that's part of that plan. It can't be the beloved then.

Can it be the beloved? No, it can't. Well, did they come today? Did they come to CC?

Did they come to repentance? Yes. Are they going to perish? Uh, they're not going to perish.

Okay. So they fit in that group. No, they're already repentant. Now we're talking about other people that who are towards them, not willing that any should perish.

None of them are going to perish. Right. And they've come to repentance. So they fit that group. Okay. But that's, that's not what the text is trying to say.

Yep. Yes, it is. That's exactly what the verse saying. Cause we'll chop the verse up in half. Yes, sir.

Is correct. You talk about the beloved. That's who it is. It cannot be everybody ever lived because God does not arrange for everybody.

Everybody lived because people are not atoned for first Samuel three talks about that.

Well, there's different ways of tackling it. It's just clear and Mark four, 10 to 12, he speaks that they will not be saved.

They are not elect the all can only be the elect. That's who the beloved are.

Yeah. And he maintains a magnifying glass on these people. He's writing to the beloved, the beloved, the beloved all the way to the end of the chapter.

Correct. I mean, it's inescapable. Yeah. So he's addressing the letter too.

He brings them up in the beginning part of the chapter. Then you only shifts to these other mockers that are coming the last days.

He's shifting to the Eschaton and to the mockers. Then he reverts back to the beloved. So he's putting in the contest of the

Eschaton, the beloved are still, are still in the contest as well. We already see that there's going to be the destruction of ungodly men, second

Peter three, seven. Just two verses prior to second Peter three, nine. That's in the

Eschaton, right? So he's saying, Hey, the Lord's not slow about his promise. It's self -counseling us, but it's patient toward you.

Well, if you saying they're already saved, you know, well, it can't be just referring to them, but because he endured their, or ensured their salvation, but he's shown it that's regarding the elect as a whole.

That's in distinction from the ungodly men who perished, correct? I'm just thinking right within the perky

P just from one, one, three, one, or second period, three, one, right.

The second period, three, nine. So nine verses, I'm not separating anything from that context.

It hasn't been rebutted yet exegetically, but that was your whole linchpin.

That was your first test to go to. So that needs to be nailed down first before going on to my point was that my point was that God's long suffering is equal to love as first Corinthians tells us, uh, and his, uh, long suffering is defined by his not willing any to perish.

And since people believe that, uh, there is at least one person who we perished, uh, to perish, then it's not referring to long suffering.

And it's not, we got the argument, but you launched into that without exegeting the verse in its context first, didn't you?

Well, I mean, I'm happy to go with your, did you do that or not? Did you launch into that? There was no exegesis got second period, three, nine, before you launched into that, when you brought it up to Matt, right?

Just so we're clear, I think everyone witnessed it. It was going to see if you're actually going to admit it or not. I mean,

I just assumed everybody knew the context of the verse. I mean, did you, okay. The question was asked Canadian Catholic.

Did you launch into that isogenesis before you walked through the tax in this context and exegeted that verse in the percocet that it's in?

Did you do so? I guess you did the contest of second peer.

You didn't. Just so we're clear. All right, good. But I just assumed that everybody was familiar with the word now.

Matt's like, do you believe you proffered your isogenesis to everyone?

So they knew your eyes cheated in there, but then when press, you don't have a substantial model to, okay. Can I change your question?

Cause I'm going to like leave in 10 minutes. Let's try and try. Uh, Matt, could someone believe they're part of the elect and not actually be part of the elect?

Sorry, I couldn't hear you, Matt. It is. Okay. How do you know you're not one of them? Because the elector regenerate, well, regenerated are the elect.

If you're generated, you're going to, you're obviously manifesting an election and regenerated people believe in the essentials of the

Christian faith. They believe in it because the natural man cannot receive them. First Corinthians two 14. So since we'd talk about where I believe in the essential of the faith,

Jesus Christ, the Trinity justification, my faith alone to create Christ alone and grace alone, then

I know I'm elect simple. No, no. But you, you think that there could be someone who believes once believes those things and no longer believes those things, right?

Yeah. But I'm not someone else. You can ask me how I know. I can't tell you about somebody else.

I know because I am believing in the essentials of the Christian faith, which people who are not regenerate, they can't do that.

Wait, you're saying that someone who is, for example, and, uh, someone can't once believe in the essentials and then reject the belief in essential.

The Bible says the natural man cannot receive the things they're foolish as to him, he cannot understand and receive them.

People can have certain intellectual understandings of things and that's fine, but it's not a reception and the trust.

This is something that only the regenerate can do. And I do that. So therefore I know that I'm elect because of that.

I think a Canadian Catholic, you're saying it's just a point action. All you're addressing is, well, they once believed it for a while and now they don't as if there's no enduring of that.

So what I'm saying is, what my point is, is how is this concept of the elect different, uh, from what we freewill believers think that, you know what the elect exists, but elect is just those people who will finally make the choice.

But my point is that they make a choice because they're elect. They don't become elect because they make a choice, but what's the difference on this view?

You, you have no, you can't know who's elect. You can't know who, uh, who, for example, but I know that I am elect and I believe

Matt Yester is elect because I've known Matt for years. We've had many conversations all over the phone, over internet and things like that.

He exhibits routinely that the, uh, aspects of regeneration. You, however, do not.

There are people who have, uh, been, so this is my point. I mean, are you saying that there can't be anyone who you believe is elect and then they turn out to not be like, you can't both be elected, also not elected at the same time as a non sequitur.

Okay, good. So there can be someone who appears to be elected and who isn't elect, right? Yeah. People who we would think might be, but they really weren't.

So how can you tell them apart? I said, when someone believes it's because God has regenerated, he regenerates the elect.

What we do is look at their fruit and we look at the confession of their faith. That's the doctrine of, uh, first Corinthians 2 14, a natural man cannot receive the things of God for the fruits to him that regenerate are going to be able to make and choose the true confession of the true doctrines of faith.

This is why I use you as an example of someone who was not regenerate because you do not believe in the essentials of the doctrines of the faith.

So I don't know if you're elect or not, but I know you're not regenerate now because you continually reject the true gospel.

Okay. So, uh, I have, I have like around 10 minutes before I leave. It'll leave. Can I run one

Bible verse by you? Sure. All right. Okay. Can you go to James 5 19 and 20?

Okay. So here it is. My brothers, if anyone among you wonders from the truth and someone bring him back, brings him back,

I'm reading from the ESV by the way, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wondering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

So what do we have here? We have a verse, sorry, actually versus, because I just read to that teach that someone can wander away from the faith.

Okay. Uh, they can be staring death in the face and someone can bring them back from that state back into the state of salvation now on your doctrine.

And again, I don't mean to lampoon Calvinist. I mean, I'm not like, I'm not hateful of Calvinist. I'm just saying, okay, here's the problems.

There's good parts about it. There's bad parts about it. I'll talk about both. So here's the problem, right? On your view, this shouldn't be possible because obviously no one can even be staring at death or wander away from the truth.

I mean, they could fall into sin, but they're still elected to time when they sin, right? I'm done.

It would never say to begin with, you see, Jesus says he won't lose any.

What James is talking about is our justification before people, not before God talking about human interaction, human work, he's talking about this kind of thing as James is going to write to a bunch of people, he says, look, if you turn a sinner back from his ways, okay, to cultivate cover a multitude of sins, it's not saying it's not a comment on, on eternal security that you can lose your salvation or not.

We know you can't because of what Jesus says in John 6, 37 through 40. He says, look, if any of you stray from the truth and someone turns them back, you know, you're saving from the soul, okay, fine.

There are people who can appear to be elect, appear to be Christians, and then they, they stray away from what that truth is.

The Jews could easily do that. You can go to Galatians three and Galatians five. It talks about this kind of thing.

People who appeared that, that they were saved, but they really weren't. That's all that's going on here in James. Okay. So you don't believe that anyone can, for example, lose salvation, right?

Of course not. Jesus says the will of the father is that he lose none of all that the father has given him, John 6, 37 through 40.

So if Jesus loses any, then Jesus has sinned because he's failed to do the will of the father. James can't contradict

Jesus. This is not about losing one's salvation. It's generically speaking to a group of people, those who seem to be saved and those who seem to not be saved.

And if you go to James chapter one, what you can find out is he's speaking to the lost tribes. I mean, to the various tribes scattered about Israel, he's speaking to the

Jews and in the covenantal aspect, Jews could consider themselves to be saved and weren't, and might appear to be saved and wouldn't be, and so if they stray away from the truth, it doesn't mean that they were believers or regenerate at the beginning, but they, uh, that they were saved or they were generate, but they have that truth and they're straying from it.

They're going away from it. Just as Hebrews 6, 4 through 6, Hebrews 10, 26 can talk about. Okay.

So yeah, I have, I have, uh, I have a minor objection, I guess there. Um, how, how do you, so let's think about it a little bit, right?

Um, you don't believe that salvation can be lost. Jesus says the will of the father is that he loses none.

Okay. I got it. That's why I don't believe you can lose your salvation because of what Jesus said. Okay, good.

I got it. So you think that God can, okay, let's try it this way. Um, do you believe that God, uh, warned

Cain to, um, dominate over sin? Warned Cain to dominate over sin?

Yes. Not sure what you mean by that, but he, you know, he warned

Cain, but what's it got to do with eternal security? Well, what the point is, is that God, for example, can will something and that thing failed to come to fruition.

God, you serve, but it's not the God of scripture. So you believe that there was,

I taught you about decree of will, prescriptive will, will. Okay.

You see what, by the lack of precision that you have, you bring confusion into the discussion, and then

I repeatedly have to clarify what it is. You're even saying, look,

Jesus said, all of the father gives me will come to me that when it comes to me, I certainly will not cast out for.

I've come now from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me that all that he's given me.

I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. Can Jesus lose any? No, he can't lose any.

So then eternal security. Good. That's contradicting Roman Catholicism incidentally. So that's not the interpretation, but yeah,

I understand it. I mean, again, I've said I have to go in a minute, but I mean, I've said this before,

I have no, I have no, like, like I know people that passionately hate Calvinism.

I don't. I find the religion attractive. I'm just saying from this point of view, actually you find

Catholicism attractive because you're a man in carnal flesh. Right. But just saying, I don't want to, like,

I'm saying that I'm not finding the theology attractive, but like,

I mean, even if I wasn't a Catholic, I understand people think, oh, you're Catholic. That's why you don't like, and I wasn't the Catholic.

I wouldn't go. I go to Lutheranism. Uh, I might go to Anglicanism, you know, I might go to something like that.

The point is, my point is this, okay. Scripture seems to indicate very clearly that human agency and free will is important.

Okay. Of course it is. Okay, good. So, I mean, I, I think that that conflicts with the view that God predestines people to, but either way

I have to go. So thanks so much for your time. All right. God bless. Nice to see you too.

Again, Matt Yester. It's been a while. All right. God bless both of you and our bearded fellow here.

Charlie's fine. God bless you, buddy. And, uh, all right. God bless. Take care, everybody. All right.

Good. Take care. So Levi came in. You want to say something Levi, buddy? Well, uh, it has nothing to do with Calvinism.

I was listening, I guess, to help our Catholic friend out here a little bit. I, I, and I'm not up on it.

I did read a few of the articles that Charlie Spine gave. Um, are you, are you

Catholic or what? No, absolutely not. But I guess to help him, I probably would have tried to go to Acts 10, but, but then again,

I was in agreement with you guys. I'm surprised, not totally, but I mean, I'm surprised you didn't go to Matthew 15 or you didn't,

I meant to say, starting, I think with verse 14 or something, uh, off the top of my head is, um, it looks like Jesus didn't even want those guys to be saved.

I mean, you're breaking up a little bit for me. I'm having trouble following everything you're saying.

Can you hear me now? Yeah. Can you hear me now? Okay. I guess I just was surprised that somebody, you or Matt yesterday didn't go to Matthew 15 around versus, you know, verse 14 and so on.

It appeared to me that Jesus didn't want some to get saved, you know? Um, but I don't really want to get into that discussion.

Oh, 1514. Let me check it out. I don't know all the verses. All right. So who does?

I mean, but, uh, blind man leaves a blind. They both fall into the pit. Okay. Yeah.

I, um, well, it's the one, you know, leave them alone.

You know, it's like, you didn't even want to give those people the gospel and maybe I'm misquoting them. I thought it was, you know, let them alone.

They're blind. Got you. The blind. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm actually in agreement with the, uh, hate verses of Matthew five, five, 11, five,

King David, and that's Psalm five, Psalm five, five, Psalm 11. So let me ask you, did

I forget to say Psalm? I'm sorry. Yeah, that's all right. Psalm 139 verses 21 and 22 where King David was hating out his enemies without perfect as in a whole complete or mature hatred,

I think. Um, but, uh, anyway, you can argue that stuff all night.

I heard you quote Isaiah 64 verse six. Behold, it is written before me.

I will not keep silence, but we'll recompense even recompense into the bosom. You did that.

And I think towards the beginning of the show, correct. Yeah. And Romans three,

I believe it was a versus nine through 12 or 10, 11, 12 as it is written.

There is no, uh, there's not righteous. No, not one. There's none that understand it. There was none that speak of that for God.

They are gone. They're all gone out of the way. They are together become unprofitable. There was none that do with good.

No, not one. So, um, I don't, what do you mean? Are you talking about believers?

No, believers aren't like that. Well, I'm just wondering, because when I look at 64 verse six of Isaiah.

And I read basically all 66 chapters, but especially, you know, I mean, we can start on 60,

Isaiah 65, where, which the things they were doing, yes, there were filthy or soiled rags, depending on the translation.

That makes sense to me. But if you have the Holy spirit in dwelling in you, and, uh, for that matter with Romans three, to me, it looks like the plush as well, if you're looking, you know, with the

Holy spirit in you, how would you be doing works? It's filthy wet rags because it's you. That is no good.

The Holy spirit working in you should be good. Should it not? Let me ask you, um, are you doing you're a

Christian, right? Yeah. Yeah. I'm a messianic. Okay. So do you do, do you ever do anything perfectly good?

Okay. I'm going to ask you again. If you have the Holy spirit in you, that should be good.

I mean, those no, no, no. Hold on. Hold on. Now I've watched the way you control that guy.

Look, this is why I want fair panels. Most of the time. Ephesians two 10, pretty much sums that up.

When you go to Ephesians two verses eight, nine, verse 10 should be the result, I mean, with the

Holy spirit. And if you really have what we call the rock hopper dish in you, that, that the results should be pretty obvious.

So I'm going to ask you again, is the Holy spirit in you? Is that a good thing?

And you should be coming out with good action here. I, if you can ask my question,

I'll try to answer you. I will answer. I'll answer Paul. The apostle said in Romans six, 18 through 25,

Paul, the apostle who would saved justified and dwelt by the Holy spirit said he didn't do the things he wanted to do and did things he should not do.

He was complaining about his sinfulness and things like that. So when you're, if your question you're asking is too simplistic,

I'm asking you, if you believe that the Holy spirit in you means you can do good work.

So I got several questions to ask. You get the one doing the work. If you said

Roman six, did you actually mean Roman seven? I did say

Roman six. You're correct. It's Roman seven. I've been saying Roman six lately too. I don't know why, but Romans seven, uh, yeah, 18 through 25.

Well, I understand that. That's when the flesh takes over and you take your own will back and not let the

Holy spirit guide you. That's my answer. Okay. Then let me ask you a question. So if the Holy spirit is working in you, is it you doing the work?

No. Okay. So if it's not you doing the work, the Holy spirit is doing something good and it's good, that's coming through you.

It's not you doing it, is it? So you're not doing a good work. I think that's a simplistic answer. And I think

I'm asking the correct questions, but yeah, you're not, you know, no, no, no, no. Oh yes.

Oh yes. I'm thinking I am making, I just, I just, I just asked you a question.

Look, you said it's not you doing the work. If it's the Holy spirit doing the work, if it's not you doing the work, which is what you said, then you're not doing any good work.

Yeah, but I'm not a pup. I'm not a string puppet. I have to make a decision whether I let the spirit guide me or not. I'm working with what you said.

So what you should do at this point is say, you know, I think it's a good point. Let me rephrase it. And then we just work from there.

That's all. So the way it has to work is that the Holy spirit works in us.

And yet we also work. So there's a union where the word of God, where God is indwelling us.

And yet we freely do the work. And the only way, the only thing I ever say, the only good thing in me is

Jesus. It's it's it. When I get to heaven and if I'm standing in a sea of people and hypothetically, and if God looks at me,

Jesus looks at me and points towards me and says, well done. I'm going to look behind me because I know my own heart.

I've never done anything good because even though I want to honor God, I know that there's never a pure motive that I have never a pure motive, but what

I do is cleanse with the blood of Christ. So therefore I receive the credit, even though it's cleansed through Christ, even though my heart is wicked.

It makes sense. Well, I don't know yet because now

I have a response to a question. It's a response to them actually. Um, can we do, are people capable of doing good things without the

Holy spirit working through them? No, no. Okay. Can you explain

Deuteronomy chapter 30 verses 10 through 15 for me? Then do you want me to read it?

No, I'm going to go to it. Deuteronomy 30, 10. Yes, sir.

Deuteronomy 30. If you obey the law of your God and keep his commandments and the statutes, which are written in the book of the law. Okay.

So you said your question was what? What was your question again? Can you do good work without. Can you do anything good without the

Holy spirit indwelling in you? Because back at that time, the only time the Holy spirit went in somebody that I can, that I can just, that I can tell anyway was for a specific task, the

Holy spirit didn't do for people then what it's doing for us now. My point to you is these people in Deuteronomy, when

Moses was instructing the next generation before he had to go off and die and be buried in an unknown place in Moab, can you explain about if we're not able to do anything good and righteous and be obedient, then can you explain

Deuteronomy 30 verses 10 through 15 that tell me otherwise that they can't do it?

No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that it says he's doing good works there? No, it says it's possible for him to do.

Do you want me to read it? I can do it. No, I'm looking at it. I'm reading it. The thing is you're saying what you're saying is we're dealing with issue of good work.

Where does it say they're doing a good work in there? You, you, you can interpret that and you have your master in this.

I'm asking you where it says good work. Well, okay. For this, look, it's not in heaven that you should say that, you know, who can bring it onto us that we may hear and do it.

It's not beyond the sea that we can hear it and do it. Uh, but the word is very nigh or near you, um, in your mouth and in your heart that you mayest or can do it.

See, it's pretty, pretty much indicating that Moses was saying they could do it.

And to my knowledge, those people did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them, but you're telling me that they can't do it, that we can't do it.

And I don't know how much different we are today from mankind back then in the wilderness. Do what?

These are good things. Being obedient and doing these things for the Lord. Okay. It's on a human level.

It's not that hard to interpret, man. I don't Levi, Levi, we need to get a little bit more precise.

Can you define what a good work is? Well, okay. Let's start with his commandments and Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy five, let's start there.

Define what a good work is. It makes it.

Okay. How about, how about that? No, no, no. I don't need your help.

No, that's okay. I appreciate the offer. But when God wrote it from his own finger, I look at that as a good, you know, these are good things that he's writing with his own, my help.

Okay. Look, it's right here.

I'm the Lord, your God, which brought you out of Egypt in the house of me. You shall have no other God before me. Okay. Put him as your only

God because he's the creator. That's a good thing. You should not make any graven images or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth.

You should not bow yourself under them or serve them. He's a jealous God showing mercy to those, you know, of them that love, you know, cause that's what he'll do.

Uh, you should not take away. I'm giving it to you.

I don't know how much more straight up I can be. Well, you have to say a good work is, and then you say what a good work is.

Okay. A good work is making him your only true Lord, your only God that you worship and serve because he's the only creator.

Is that good? I would say that's good. Yeah. Okay. And okay.

Hold on. What makes something good according to God? Something that he instructs you to do.

What he tells you to do. Can an unbeliever do what God commands? Well, again, from what

I'm seeing here, I, I'm not sure about Deuteronomy 30. All I know is that from what I can tell, I really don't know the full answer to that, man, in all honesty.

Can an unbeliever do what God commands? From what I know, if these people didn't have the Holy Spirit like you and I were able to have, can you hear me?

Yes, I can. But you keep, I'm trying to ask you questions. Can an unbeliever do a good work? Honestly, because you're asking me a different question.

I'm saying that these more than likely these were believers, but they didn't have the Holy Spirit in them at that time.

But yet you're saying you can't do it. I understood that. I'm asking you, can an unbeliever do a good work?

Yes, I do believe that he or she can. So you're telling me then that an unbeliever who rejects the blood of Christ can do something that's good before the infinitely

Holy God. Yeah. Well, maybe

I should have, maybe I should have brought it in earlier. This guy, you know, Acts chapter 10, Cornelius wasn't saved before Peter witnessed to him.

He started bowing down and worshiping Peter, which is definitely against that commandment.

Okay. You're not hearing what I'm trying to get at. And the reason is, is you're just interrupting and not wanting to work with me on this.

There's a human level of goodness and there's a level of goodness that God can say on one level, yeah, you're doing a good thing.

If we were to say that a Christian doesn't lie, well, is it a good thing? Yeah. If an unbeliever doesn't lie, is that a good thing?

Well, yeah. Is it acceptable to God? No. If it's truly good, according to God's nature to according to God's essence and God's standard, and shouldn't it be acceptable?

Well, yes. But then why is it that an unbeliever, his good work is not acceptable to God because it's not through Christ.

And the reason is, as Deuteronomy 27, 26 says, perfection is the requirement. And Paul gets into this in Galatians 3 .10.

Perfection in heart, perfection in intent. For something to be good, the object has to be good.

The object has to be the glory of God. The standard has to be the word of God and the blood of Christ has to be the thing that makes it clean.

Otherwise you're having goodness apart from the sacrifice of Christ and you can't do that.

I'm actually somewhat in agreement with that because without Christ, I mean, he's the way, the truth, and the life. You believe he's

God in flesh, right? You believe he is God in flesh, right? Yes. Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?

Do you believe in the Trinity? Yes, to an extent, yes. What? Yes, I believe

Jesus is God. I do. I thought I believe in the Trinity. That's okay.

Do you believe in the Trinity? One God and three distinct simultaneous persons? Yes. God is father,

God, father, son, father, Holy spirit. Yes, I do. Can you be specific? Would you say father,

God, father, son, father, Holy spirit? God the father, God the son, God the Holy spirit.

Acts chapter five and 13 confirmed the Holy spirit. I get all that, but now can you say, okay, we'll go.

I can go to that subject. What you define your specific definition, you

Matt Slick, what, what the Trinity is, and I'll see if I agree or not. The Trinity is one eternal being who exists as three eternal code, powerful, distinct, simultaneous persons.

The father, son, Holy spirit. That's it. Yeah. Well, that's my economic and ontological aspect of the

Trinity. If you want empirical research and we can get into other aspects, but that's it. Well, no,

I'm in agreement with that. I guess I asked that question. All right. So back, back to good works.

Unbelievers can't do anything good on a divine level, on a human level.

Sure. And sometimes God would speak to somebody and say, well, you know, it's a good thing you're doing, but it's not acceptable to him without the blood of Christ.

That's why it's important to define what a good work is. Well, I was just bringing it up because you simply said, when

I simply asked you, can people do anything good without the Holy spirit? And you said, no. And I said, okay, let's go to Deuteronomy 30, starting with verse 10, because it didn't make a lot of sense because I argue with a lot of people when they try to bring, which this is not the subject, but then they bring up Acts 1510, which if people don't know what was really going on there, it looks like a contradiction to them, which is, if not, there's no contradiction in the substance of scripture, but I just thought

I'd ask if there was anything good you could do without the Holy spirit. Yeah, but Acts 1510 doesn't deal with the issue of what is good.

Just because covenant Israel was able to keep commandments doesn't mean that the word good, which can have different facets of meaning and understanding in different contexts, doesn't mean that they are good, but it doesn't mean it's not good.

The reason is because what does the word good mean? Good on the divine level? Well, of course not, because everything they do is touched by sin.

A good on a human level? Yeah, of course. That's why I said we got to define good and we have to say, what is the standard of good?

If goodness is something we can achieve on our own, then we don't need the Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, we would. I mean, we do a couple of bad things that would need an atoning sacrifice, but I think you get the main point.

This is why precision is really important in this kind of discussion. That's all. Yeah. No, if you define it that way,

I'm going to agree with that. I just, because I see these people take, look, my works as a human being,

I guess I can go along with that somewhat, but I'm looking at what the Israelites or the Jews and Judahites and the

Benjamites were doing at that time in Isaiah 64, all 66 chapters, and yeah, their works to put it nicely were filthy rags, it makes sense to me, but y 'all have these

Christians who claim to have the Holy Spirit and be an armed fire. I don't know how Calvinist stands with that,

I don't care, but then they're saying, but my works are filthy rags. And I'm like, well, you're kind of knocking.

I don't think you understand Calvinism. I probably don't, but a lot of Christians, they're not apologists.

They don't have the education you do. I see these people that Calvinists or Arminians, it doesn't really matter.

My works are filthy rags. And it's like, well, you're risking blaspheming the Holy Spirit. No, you're not.

No, you're not. You know what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is? What's your definition? I'm asking if you know what it is.

Well, I have my definition. Yes. Then what is it? That I go to my deathbed, to my grave without accepting

Jesus Christ. Okay. That's not what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. It's found in Matthew chapter 22, verses 12 to 32, or 12 to 32.

And it's saying that Jesus was doing his miracles by the power of the enemy. Because Jesus was baptized in order to fulfill old

Testament law. The Holy Spirit came upon him at that time. And that's when he was performing his miracles with the

Holy Spirit upon him and anointed him. So he was doing his miracles most probably by the power of the Holy Spirit.

He's casting out demons. And they said that you're doing with the power of the devil, Beelzebul. And he says, blasphemy against the

Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. That's what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. I've read that many times.

And I just, you know, that's why I've never taken the liberty to blaspheme the

Holy Spirit, at least not knowingly. But I also, I've heard that commentary.

Okay, do you believe, do you believe you can lose your salvation? Because what you're talking about seems to imply that. No, I don't.

Good, good. So that a Christian could not commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Could he? Yes. If he commits blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come. So then how could he go to heaven? If the sins are forgiven?

Because I believe you can, I don't believe you lose your salvation. Never have. I believe you can knowingly and willingly walk away from it.

But you know, that's not losing. Oh, so you can lose your salvation.

You have to walk away from it. No, that's not what I said. Well, I said, is it possible for someone who is, is it possible for someone who's saved to become unsaved?

Yes. You can knowingly, listen to me now before we get all emotional, you can knowingly and willingly walk away from it.

I don't think it's the easiest thing in the world to do, but it can be done and I've seen people do it. Okay.

So then you're, you're Lutheran and you're judging truth by your experience.

Jesus says all that the father gives him will come to him and all that the father gives him, he will lose none.

How am I a Lutheran? So the role of father is that Jesus lose none. Can Jesus lose any? I think again, he can also let them go.

That's not losing, Matt. He says losing is, losing is, is insinuating basically that it's beyond his control and I don't believe that.

So wow. Okay. Look, let me read the text. This is John 6, 37.

John 6, 37. Yeah. Give me a second. Give me a second because you're going to read verse 44,

I presume, right? Just, just starting at verse 37. Okay.

Go ahead. Okay. All that the father gives, all that the father gives me will come to me.

It does not say all who come to me, the father will give to me. There's a group that the father gives to the son and they will come to the son.

So the father's giving a group of people to the son. That's why it says all that the father gives me will come to me.

The one who comes to me, I certainly will not cast out for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me, this is the will of him who sent me that all that he's given me,

I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day for this is the will of my father, that everyone who beholds the son and believes in him will have eternal life.

And I myself will raise him up the last day. So the will of the father is that all who behold and believe in the son,

Jesus will raise up. It can't be lost. If they lose themselves, then

Jesus is not going to raise them up. That would mean Jesus is failing. That's your, that that's your interpretation.

That's what it says. Okay. Then how do you explain what it means?

Tell me how it means that yes, Jesus can lose them and that they won't be raised up.

Tell me. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I didn't tell you he could. I said he doesn't.

They willingly and knowingly walk away from him. And yes, you can give them up. Show me where it says.

Oh, okay. All of the father gives me will come to me. And the one who comes to me,

I certainly not cast out, but they can willingly walk away. For I've come down from heaven, not to do my own will with the will of him who sent me.

This is the will of him who sent me that all that he's given me. I lose nothing unless they willingly walk away.

But his God's, the father's will is that I raise them up on the last day, unless they willingly walk away.

For this is the will of my father. Everyone who beholds his son and believes in him, unless they walk away, will have eternal life.

And I'll raise him up on the last day, unless they walk away. Well, that's no offense, but that's a nice ice of Jesus.

I guess. What about Hebrews chapter six verses four, five, and six? The ice of Jesus is what you're saying.

Well, you can isolate verses all night. You're doing it right now. Now, can we, can I go to my verses?

Hebrews six, go ahead. Okay. You want me to start reading?

I double dare you. Go ahead. You're going to pay me a thousand bucks.

No, just kidding. Okay. Hebrews six, starting with verse four, for it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the

Holy spirit and have tasted the word of God and the powers of the world to come, that they shall follow me to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucified to themselves, the son of God, oppression, put him to an open shame.

Now, I know you're probably going to point out to me, they were talking about the Jewish people already had the Messiah, right?

But well, is that all you're going to do? Or can you explain your Calvinist version?

Cause you're right. There's a lot about Calvinism. I don't know. Now, what it says here for those in case you've been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift.

Does it say they're saved and justified? No, may partakers of the Holy spirit.

Does it mean they're justified? Doesn't say that Judas was a partaker of the Holy spirit in that he saw what was going on and the miracles worked by the

Holy spirit through Christ. And he tasted the good word of God, the powers of the age to come. They saw that Judas did many of the

Jews did, and they had a faulty understanding and they were believing in part what's going on.

It's impossible to renew them again to repentance, which would mean if you believe in the text means they can lose their salvation, which means

Jesus failed, but what you'd be saying here is then is that those who were saved and then became unsafe could never become saved again, is that your position?

In some cases. Yes. I don't know about all. I don't, I'm not sure on that, but see when you're saying it, you said

Levi, it says it's impossible. Levi, it says it's impossible to renew them again to repentance.

That would logically necessitate. They could never regain their salvation. Right. Again, we're isolating versus,

I mean, I can go along and do this, but there's impossible, but there's over 31, there's over $31 ,000, but Levi, Levi, you need to stop, you need to listen, you're the one who said

I'm going to individual verses and I'm trying to show you the context and I read this, what you brought up,

I asked you a question from the text you brought up and you ignore it. And then say, I'm taking it versus going to these individual verses.

I asked you for what you brought up. Is it, it says it's impossible to renew them again to repentance.

Now I have to ask you, if you think this means you can lose your salvation, then does it also mean since it says it's impossible to renew them again, repentance that they can never regain their salvation.

Is that your position? Not in all cases. No, because we have over 31 ,000,

I said, I was in agreement with some of it for starters, not like Hebrew six.

You said it doesn't read that they were ever in salvation. Right. But it doesn't read that they weren't either.

Levi, you just admitted, Levi, you just admitted you contradicted the word of God. No, I didn't.

No, I didn't. Yes, you did. The text says it's impossible to renew them, which means there's no condition from your perspective.

And then you said, well, not in all cases. So you just contradicted the word of God. Yeah. The same writers, the same writer in the same book says it's impossible for God to lie.

Exact same phrase, impossible. You can't say, well, not under some circumstances he could.

No, it's just as impossible for him to lie as it is for them to come back. I realize it's impossible.

You're talking Hebrew 618, right? It's airtight. There's no possibility.

Hebrew 618, Titus 1, 2, and there's two verses in the Old Testament, I believe, Numbers. You can stick to Hebrew 6, stick to what he's saying.

Fine, we can stick to that, but you're saying it doesn't, it doesn't show that they're in, that they're in salvation, but it doesn't show that they're, they're not either.

There's no burden of proof either way. Aye, aye, aye. Everybody's objecting to the book of Hebrews.

These people are being tempted to go back to the Old Testament ways, the Old Sacrifices. So the author of Hebrews is speaking to this group, warning them, you better know where you stand in regards to the sacrifice of Christ.

If you're to go back, the Old Testament sacrifice, there remains no more sacrifice of sin for you. That's right. If these people do not go back.

I was going to bring that up, Matt. Yes, that's apologetic of that. I was going to bring that up, but you did it for me.

So doesn't that kind of debunk eternal security? No, he's speaking to a general group. He does not know who's elect or not.

If they leave, that's agreement with 1 John 2, 19. They went out for us because they were truly of us.

They went out for us so that it'd be shown that they weren't all of us. It's shown that those who endure and who endures the end shall be saved.

Because of that enduring faith. Once again, it's about the nature of saving faith. But he's once again, it's not saying this person saved this citizen.

He's speaking to the general congregation, to this group of Jews, to the Hebrews who had this prior experience with the miracles of Jesus, the preaching of the word of God, the gospel, et cetera.

And he's saying, here's the warnings. These people are being tempted to turn away and go back to the

Old Testament ways. They're being just like the Galatian Judaizers coming in and going, hey, you guys got to go through these other things here to actually become

Christians, you got to go through these Jewish rites. He goes, you receive circumcision. Christ is of no benefit to you. You're turning away from the gospel that I preach to you.

Preaching the gospel is anathema. If us are an angel, preach this gospel, let it be anathema.

OK, so same issue being applied. Galatians, Hebrews, same thing here. The general warnings are applicable, but he doesn't know who's elect and who's not.

The elect will persevere. Yes, sir. I'd say will turn away. You're not even sure.

Matt, yesterday, I need to get going.

I need to get going. OK, I need to get going. You guys want to stay? It's fine. Let's stay.

That's OK. Yeah, yeah. I'd like to address an earlier issue about.

OK, I'm going to get going. I'll see you guys later. All right, see you, Matt. Well, it was good talking to you,

Matt Slick. He's gone. Yeah. Yeah, I just wanted to point out something about doing good.

We're all going to fall short on that measurement. I mean, you may do good or even better than I might do horizontally.

That's not a problem. But as far as if you are going to call yourself messianic,

I'm wondering, what is your messiah doing for you right now? According to the scriptures, of course.

Take a look here at First John. If we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus, his son, cleanses us from all sin.

Of course, that's if you've looked at that closely, you'll know there's well, in English, we call it a participial construction.

It's an ongoing action that Jesus is involved with right now as our advocate.

OK, it's not something that he just did and it's over and we live good lives and do good things.

No, it's an advocate that is working on our behalf continually, just like in First John two, one or excuse me,

First John two, one. Yeah, these things are right to you that you may know or that you may not sin.

And if anyone has a sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. Now he's writing to believers.

They got the Holy Spirit. They're Christians. He's saying this advocate, this is what he's doing for us daily, moment by moment, is advocating for us.

It's given in the same language. OK, it's not a done deal that now that we're born again, we got the

Holy Spirit in us that we can somehow reach a point of sinless perfection in the way we live down here.

No, we need that advocate all the time. That's the next chapter in Hebrews, Hebrews seven, regarding his high priestly position and the intercession.

I don't see any. I don't see any disagreement because I was going to bring up Romans 8, 34, compare and defer to Hebrews 7, 25 with that.

He is our intercessor. You have first Timothy five that he mediates. So I don't have a problem with that.

You seem to indicate early, you seem to indicate earlier, and I got the definite impression that you with the

Holy Spirit living in you, you don't go around doing anything wrong. You do good.

No, I don't know how you got that because I admitted my flesh. I never denied Romans seven when

I was talking with Matt Slip. So I got well, then I may have gotten the distinctly wrong idea, but I took notes and I, that's how it came across to me.

So I apologize if I misinterpreted or misunderstood, but I don't think I did. I think you're bringing up, at least if I picked up the contest that, you know, regarding Ephesians two, eight through 10, that the result would be a manifestation of works, which

God foreordained we should walk in them, or that's Philippians two, 12 through 13, where your salvation with fear and trembling, but it says, for it is

God who is at work in you, both willing to act according to his good pleasure. But it's not perfection because we're only perfected by the blood of Christ.

Not all works. You're not contributing to our salvation. Okay, Matt, Matt Yester, right? Okay, what is your definition or biblical?

What is your definition, Matt Yester's definition for perfection? You're throwing me off. Oh, perfection would be the absolute holiness of God.

God is absolutely perfect. That's an incomputable attribute. God, only God is perfect. And yeah, the biblical authors are pretty replete with that.

I was going to bring up James two, 10 earlier. What is James saying? He's saying if you offend the law on one point, you have to keep the other one.

It says you've offended in all points. You're guilty of all. So, and that's the parallel. Let's say if I do, you know, just a scenario here.

Just say if I murdered you. Yeah, I'm guilty in the sense of what the law is, the instructions are.

I get that. But that does not make me specifically guilty of adultery. What does James two, 10 say?

Okay, what does James two, 10 mean? Offending the law in one point.

That's where they have to make a decision. If I'm sitting in a court of law being tried for murder, you know, for first degree murder, manslaughter, whatever it is.

I'm not saying that. Yes, I'm saying in the light of God's holiness, one offense of the law.

I mean, I'm wondering how James is using it. The court says going, well, if you're convicted of murder.

Yeah. In one point has become guilty of law. He's guilty of the instructions and he will be needs to, not that he will or won't be, but he needs, he or she needs to be judged according to that specific law or instruction that he or she broke.

It makes no sense if I murdered you to reprimand me and to convict me for adulteration, which

I think is technically still on the books, if I'm correct. But I'm not doing it.

I'm doing it according to the Bible because the

Bible, the scriptures are specific here. It's like when somebody comes in when

Jesus, well, that's a different subject. I'm just making the point. Let's read the verse for whoever keeps the whole law.

How many is that according to the old covenant? 613 laws, right? 613 laws.

Do I have to explain that to you too? No, I'm just saying you agree. It's 613 laws. So no, no, no, no, no.

613, not 713 for starters. Okay. My bad.

Okay. Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point violating one.

The next statement James says has become guilty of all. What does that last clause mean?

Sure. Look, I don't believe we're under that anyway.

Christ freed us from the divorce, the curse of the disobedience. But for starters, if we were under all that now, you and I and Charlie are not under 613.

To give you exemplary a great, we would never be under the purification laws of the women.

That's the women. That's ridiculous. You got men, you got women, you got boys, you got girls, you got city town, you got country folk, you've got employers or you get employees, you've got the

Levites. And then for that matter, you've got the coenemes. So actually we would only be obligated between 100.

I get a type. I'm sorry about that. It's not even parsing that out. I agree with you there. It's there's ceremonial law, moral law, civil law, the threefold.

But that's my point. But Jesus comes in two commandments. I'm just saying when he says the whole law, he's giving it a whole.

Well, Jesus summed it up and love your God, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, and love your neighbor's self.

Encapsulated that is all the law and the prophets. So I'm taking Jesus in tandem here. So, but what's the precedence for what

Jesus said? The 613 laws of the Old Covenant. Let's continue with that then. Okay, so I'm just saying when

James is saying the whole law, what does he mean by that? Well, again, what you're guilty for at that time, it just makes you guilty of the law.

What does James mean by what you said? How do we know what James means by the whole law? I don't know which one, right here.

Okay, well, I've got it right here for you in Romans chapter nine. Not that difficult. What does

James mean in James 2 .10? Oh, no man, anything but to love one another, for he that love with another hath fulfilled the law, for this thou shalt not commit adultery, shall not steal, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in the same name, without shalt thou love thy neighbor as thyself.

Now, if you have those two that hang, and while the law and the prophets hang, you should have no problem not committing these things.

What's the big deal here? I'm just asking, what does James mean by the whole law here? How do we know what that phrase means when

James brings it up? You are just as guilty in the sense of sin.

If I, again, if I was to murder you, I'm just as guilty. He says keeps it. He says keeps it. No, no, no, no, no, I'm trying to answer you,

Matt. I'm reading it verbatim. And you're not, I know, but we read it. I'm trying to read the verse.

But James says, for whoever keeps the whole law. Okay, what does this clause mean?

For whoever keeps the whole law. What does that mean? James says it, what does it mean?

That means you're actually keeping it at the time. What's the whole law mean? That means you're actually keeping it at the time.

What does the whole law mean? The ones that you are obligated under for instructions,

Matt. Every one of them? And if you break it, then you are guilty. And it reads it.

Okay, but you're being ambiguous. What does it mean? You accused Catholic Canadian. No, Catholic Canadian accused him of going half verse.

And that's what you just did to me. No. Yeah, it's one thing if I'm keeping it. I can interpret this verse in context if you want me to.

He's not bringing up a court system here. So you were bringing that in. I said, that's not what James is talking about.

You're exegeting that in. That's totally irrelevant to the context. I just went there because there's a key point.

And Paul is going to parallel this in Galatians 3 10. He's going back to Deuteronomy, quoting it, saying, right.

There's a blessings of cursing and all going there. And the conclusion is curses. Everyone who does obey all the things in the law to do them.

They're cursed. He says, if you're going to put yourself under the law, you got to obey it all perfectly.

Curses. Everyone who does obey all the things in the law to do them. All what? What do you mean by all?

Is Paul quoting Deuteronomy in Galatians 3 when he brings it up?

Galatians 3 10. This is parallel to James 2 10. It's easy to remember that James 2 10,

Galatians 3 10. They're addressing the same issue. And when he's saying the whole law and you see the holistic law brought up to the

Galatians and Paul citing that for his apostolic proof by saying, the law says you have to obey all the things, a lot of them.

Otherwise you're cursed. All the things that are, that you were obligated to obey. Yes. Again, I just brought it up.

You're not enumerating them. That's so ambiguous. In general. And women's purification laws. If you do that, you're in a bomb.

You are sending math. Even if you're trying to obey them. Right. So we're all crushed by that law. No one's obeyed it.

Matt, I don't do the purification for women. Just to let you know. So I'm just saying. So when you say all the moral law.

Right. You say, oh, we need to get a little more specific here. Don't we? I'm not saying we do Jewish sacrifices or anything that was fulfilled in Christ.

Agreed. Okay. That's obviously fulfilled because he's fulfilling all righteousness. We have baptized being the high priest by being the high priest and the sacrifice.

We know that sacrificial system is fulfilled in him. So that's done away with. But the moral law is still there. That's brought up in Romans 1,

Romans 2, Romans 3. The whole grand gravity. Bad news.

Yes. Final piece. Yeah, but Paul's point in the book of Romans is saying, look, everyone's falling short of the glory of God.

The whole world becomes guilty before God. The Gentiles by nature know that God exists.

Jews same as what same way. And they have the law yet still commit the same things. And in conclusion,

Romans chapter three, they're all guilty and under sin. That's Paul's whole big argument for two and a half chapters.

Correct? Right. And you bring it up again to the Galatians going, the law says this.

Whatever scope it's under for certain people or whatever. And I put them all under the priestly law of the Levites.

Okay. That's always going on there. He's just saying, where are the blessings and cursings there?

Obviously, the moral law was given to them. We can, okay, we can forget about that.

I have no problem with that. Are you telling me? I mean, it sounds like to me, when

I read Paul's letters to Timothy, there's still some specific instructions going on. So there's still some standards, right?

Now regarding the pastoral epistles of how Timothy is to conduct himself in the church as a pastor and elder.

And Titus, that's what the pastoral epistles are for. That's the instruction that's being given there in the church. And how men and women are to conduct themselves.

Yeah. How men and women are also to conduct themselves. Right? Correct. God set up the principles of the church and everything like that of how they conduct themselves.

Right. But that doesn't justify us before God. It doesn't make me more righteous than another person. Yeah. I'm not saying that it does.

I'm just saying that that's part of what's going on here. And we're addressing the gospel that says, well, it's not just faith.

It's also works. Again, I'm arguing with that. If you're justified by works. What's that? You believe it's only if you do?

I just have a hard time believing that if you have the Holy Spirit. They don't commit sin anymore?

I didn't. They don't commit sin? No, I still commit sin with my flesh. Right. It's not perfection.

The judgment in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 is the believers are judged. They're either going to suffer loss of reward or gain of it based upon their works, but not salvation.

Can you take that a little further, please? Because that's regarding sanctification, not justification before God.

Charlie, can you hear me? Can you hear me? I don't think I'm being heard. Okay. Yeah, I can hear you.

I can, but I kept talking. I hear both of you. Okay. Well, maybe he was hearing me and just wasn't responding.

But when you use 1 Corinthians 3, that's all fine and good. But if you take it a little further, I'm thinking 1

Corinthians 6 as well. Or to say, what worse does a

Christian do? Does it maintain their salvation? Or not?

I'm not sure how. I'm just asking. Look, I asked you a question. You okay with 1 Corinthians 3? Fine. Let's continue to read through and go to 1

Corinthians 6. Especially verses 9 and 10. And for that matter, go to Galatians 5, verse 1.

We're addressing works. He's bringing up the book of Galatians. James is bringing it up here.

He's bringing it up in James 2 .10 onwards, right? So I'm in the contest.

I'm just sticking with the contest of works. Okay. And what do they do?

Or you're bringing it up earlier to Matt. Hey, Matt, do you affirm Ephesians 2 .10? I mean, look, the one you say by grace through faith and not of works, there's a result if they're continuing to allow to breathe and their heart's beating and God keeps them living for a while.

He says, they're their workmanship, creating Christ Jesus unto good works, which God foreordain they to walk in them.

But that's not the means by which they are saved in the sight of God. That's a result of being saved.

And these people in the church of Corinth, they accepted

Jesus Christ. Didn't they? Ephesus. Huh? Yeah.

First Corinthians chapter one. Right. They're having these quarrels and stuff like that. And he says, you're acting like a regenerate man. You guys ought not have this, these divisions among you.

You've accepted the gospel. They're called babes in Christ. First Corinthians chapter three, one, two, three.

Okay. I'm also looking at this in the first Corinthians six. Now I have the ESV. These are people who accepted the

Lord Jesus. And if they keep this up somehow, let's see. Verse nine and 10, or let's see.

Yeah. Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, do not be deceived, neither sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, who inherit the kingdom of God.

And of course, then he goes on to verse 11 and say, such were some of you. But he had to give them some kind of warning if they kept it up.

And what they repent of that. That's not it. It's just saying they're guilty of those sins. It said they will not enter the kingdom of God.

I just read that. He brings up in Galatians two, I go. So if you ever commit that sin, you can't, that's impossible for you to be saved.

Well, okay. Let's go to Galatians five, then two as well. 19 through 21. Yeah. And our vice is brought up there.

I go, it's just shown we failed to keep the law. We need a savior. And he states perfectly.

It's not based on our obedience that saves us. It's the blood of Christ and his righteousness imputed to us that declares us righteous in the sight of God.

We don't contribute anything to that justification. That's the doctrine of justification. If you accept

Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and you keep doing those things, you've also got

Ephesians five, verses three through seven, and first Timothy one, verses one through 10, especially, no, you're not going to hit the kingdom of God.

You're not going to enter the kingdom of God. It's not going to happen. It's pretty clear, cut and dry.

I'm one of the most. So you have to contribute something to the absolute perfect righteousness of Christ.

He obeyed the law perfectly. We didn't. Didn't he obey that law perfectly? I didn't say.

He never sinned, right? Yes. Jesus Christ did. Yeah. And Romans chapter four, after he lays out universal depravity, he says, by the worst of the law, no flesh shall be justified in his sight.

Right. Romans chapter three. You see, you're okay.

Look, I'm not claiming that we did. Man, I'm not claiming that we did. Anything should be.

How is man justified in the sight of God? How is one made righteous in the sight of God?

Per Paul in Romans three, four, five. What's Paul teaching there?

In the sight of God, remember, no flesh shall be justified in his sight by the works of the law, in his sight.

If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. This is on the vertical. How's Paul saying even

Abraham was justified? To the one who does not work, but believes in whom who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, not his works.

Works are negated in that context. He brings up two things, faith and works. Works are negated. What's left?

His faith. Did Paul also say that we could do anything, that this is possible? You're not addressing

Romans three and four. This is in the sight of God. I asked you, what is Paul bringing up?

Does he bring up two things and negate one? Is that true? Yes, he does. He also, well,

I did. I've been continuing to believe that. So in the sight of God, what is imputed to, what was imputed to Abraham?

What was imputed to Abraham as righteousness? That he had faith, that he believed. Did he have the righteousness of Christ?

Genesis 12, right? Yeah, of course he did. Or he's on Galatians and he did. What needs to be added to that?

For the right standing before God? I'm just going to scripture as well as you are. I'm asking the question. It's just a question you can answer.

I'm not asking for an argument. I'm just saying, what was his right standing before God?

Was it on the basis of Christ's righteousness or Christ plus something else? Not Christ's righteousness.

He believed. Alone? It was credited to him for his faith. Nothing needs to be added to that. Mm -hmm.

Yeah. I'm not disagreeing with that. I already told you that. You're right. You're not looking at past, present, and future, right?

I'm not looking at this. But then why don't you address this? We can do anything through Christ who strengthens us.

Philippians 4, 13. That's the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of justification is being brought up immediately after universal depravity.

Paul's going right into the gospel then. He's saying in Romans chapter 1, I'm here to preach the gospel. But before I do that,

I got to lay out the universal bad news. He does it for two and a half chapters before he brings up that good news, right?

Where does it read that? Where does it read that? Universal depravity and all that.

Where does it read that? Oh, Romans 1, 2, and 3. Romans 1, 18, all the way through the midpoint of chapter 3. You can walk through it if you want.

Be showing universal sinfulness. Yeah, Romans 1, 18. Let me get... Yeah. Well, it's just...

It's a universal argument. Yeah. It's a universal argument. He's encapsulating all men there.

I'm not totally scriptural either. I'd like to be, but I'm not. That's a separate argument. From heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth and unrighteousness.

Where does it read universal? I don't get what you... I said... I didn't say one verse, dude.

I said Romans 1, 18 through the midpoint of chapter 3 is one huge pericope. It's one big argument because he says, in conclusion, we conclude that all are under sin, both

Jew and Greek. He's encapsulating both peoples under that. When did his argument start? Since Romans 3 has a conclusion, you tell me when it started.

I'm saying Romans 1, 18, and I can exegetically prove that. Okay? If you disagree with me, you have to rebut that.

No, it's not that I'm disagreeing. It's just that you're putting other words and they may or may not fit. So... You didn't question me on what particular.

I said, if you ever read Romans 1, 2, and 3, succinctly follow the flow. Okay. He says,

I'm here to preach the gospel by the power of God and salvation to those who believe, to the

Jew first and also to the Greek. He starts at Romans 1, 16, verbatim. I'm not ashamed of this gospel for his power of God.

But he's not getting the gospel yet. He isn't bringing up the good news. He's bringing up bad news in 1, 18 following.

Men are suppressing the truth and unrighteousness. For ever since grace world got... He's going all the way back to the beginning. Remember, this is all encapsulating when he goes all the way back to the beginning.

And he does say that. And he's saying, he's even using Genesis language here. If they exchange the glory of God for bad, creeping things, that's straight out of Genesis 1.

And he's calling this generally to all men. And he's going to bring up the Jews in distinction because he's, you know, generally addressing the

Gentiles here. He's going to go, all right, this applies to you too, Jews. You got the law. You still break the law. Okay.

Conclusion, Romans 3, both those groups are under sin. He's encapsulating them both by two chapters.

His conclusion reached in chapter 3. As I can say, all have fallen short of the glory of God. There's no one immune from that state.

All fall short of the glory of God. That's the conclusion of his argument. His argument began in Romans 1, 18 and henceforth.

Correct? I've never disagreed with that. Okay. I wanted to understand you understood that context, because when we get to the latter part of Romans 3 and 4, then we need to keep in purview what he just laid out and then says, well, here's how that's remedied.

Okay. If you have a true believer, Matt, Matt, Matt.

Look at me, a regenerate believer in Christ. Okay. Matt, Matt, Matt. If you have a true believer and they're committing his acts and they continue to do them, you're going to tell me that you're going to be like those free gracers and tell me that God will reward them by making their body perish and take them over early.

Don't we all continue to sit on this side of glory? You admitted that earlier. Look, look, it's not, I never, obviously.

You said if you continue to sin, if you continue to sin, you can't possibly be saved. Again, it indicates to me in 1

Corinthians 6, as I read to you, you keep that up. You're not going to inherit. The worst of the law, by no flesh shall be justified in his sight.

You ignore that verse. No, I don't. For you. Yeah, go ahead. So by the worst of the law, you'll be justified in his sight.

You're appealing to the worst of the law because you're appealing to the 10 commandments. That's the law.

Don't lie. When Jesus is Lord and Savior and the Holy Spirit indwelling me, these things should be actually very attainable.

And Jesus says it with the rich young ruler after he walked away. The believer is able. No, no, no, no, no.

Whatever is able to obey the law of God. Jesus himself said it. He said with men it is impossible, but with God, anything is possible.

And an apostle Paul Jackson said. I get what you're saying. I get what you're saying. I listen to you. Come on, let me finish.

I know where the misstep is. Well, I'm sure you do, but I want to say it. Come on. If this was an official debate, you wouldn't be allowed to do this.

Philippians 4 .13. So, I want you, yeah, if these things are possible to do, and I'm seeing the opposite from people who are claiming to be believers, and have the

Holy Spirit. Possible to do for what? Possible to do for what? To make themselves right before God?

Or you're saying, those according to the flesh cannot do what's pleasing to God? That's Romans 8, 7 -8. And he says those according to the

Spirit can. But it's not for their justification. He's bringing that up after it's already justified by faith alone.

Romans 8, 7 -8. Justified by faith alone? Is that what you just said? That's Romans 3 and 4.

You care to argue against that point? I've never found a verse that reads by faith alone, ever. Okay, I told you,

Romans 4, Paul brings up only two things in Romans 4. Works and faith.

He negates one of them by putting the word not before it. One's negated. You only have two things brought up, and one was negated.

There's only one left, correct? So you're going to use your comment here?

Did you see the word alone there? I go, by strict logic, and you understand logic, right?

You only have two things that are brought up, and Paul negates one of them. You can do math.

Two minus one equals what? One. One. What's left?

It's faith. Yeah, I just said that. Because he says, to the one who does not work.

What does that mean? It means not work. And I thought I made it clear that if you have true salvation and the

Holy Spirit in you, then the works should manifest themselves, which comes with... I agree. That's what I'm addressing.

That's why I said, stop. I get ya. And you wouldn't stop. I said I understood where the misunderstanding was, because I affirm

Ephesians 2, 8 through 10. It says, where it's working through Christ Jesus unto good works, they're going to walk in good works.

But it's not perfection. But it says they're ordained to walk in the good works. And I quoted Philippians 2, 12 and 13 to you.

It just says, you're not doing this on some autonomous lines, it says, God who is at work in you, both to will and to act according to his good pleasure.

But that's not perfection either. We're not perfected on this side of glory. That's Romans 8, when we're glorified, and we pass on.

Then we'll have the inability to sin, okay? But the spiritual regenerate can't obey the law of God.

They can't obey the law of God. That's by Christ, you already admitted that. It said, it's either the perfection of Christ, or it's nothing at all.

I also said that it's very possible to do from what I'm reading. Again I said it's very possible to do while we're in this lifetime, and I've used scripture.

Possible to do what? Obey the law perfectly? James already refuted that. Paul already refuted that.

You're just ignoring the book of authors. Okay, you can say no all you want. But people who've heard of the text, they go, okay, someone just wants to assert the opposite of what the text says, because you're not addressing the text.

Oh, again, I used other texts. Paul says he has a righteousness not his own,

Philippians 3 .9, not derived from the law, but that which is by faith in Christ. It says it's not of the law, and you go, well, there's a certain commandments that are of the law.

I go, as soon as you quote those vice lists, he's bringing up Old Testament law. It's brought up in the New Testament as well.

You're not getting free from the law, and he's already said, by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified in his sight as the basis of their righteousness before God, the declared righteousness on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone, nothing of themselves.

That's how a man enters heaven. And if Christ, the righteousness of Christ in you, you shouldn't have any problem manifesting that, correct?

I just said they will manifest it because Ephesians 2 .10 says they will, but it's not 100 % perfection.

It's just there will be a manifestation of works. They would desire other people to be saved. They're going to preach that gospel of grace and say, it's only by faith alone.

We're all guilty sinners. I'm going to quote Romans 3 in the Romans 3 and 4. I'm going to quote that whole first four or five chapters because that's the very basis he starts from.

Ephesians 2 .10. Yeah, give me a second first, whoever you are. It doesn't say that, okay, it says, it doesn't say that word that your works will be perfect.

It doesn't indicate that. Does it indicate that it's not perfect? No. Ephesians 2 .8, before we get to Ephesians 2 .10,

Ephesians 2 .8 says, let me pull it up here. I'm just going to paraphrase off the top of my head, but I want to pull up the actual text.

We only make a few clicks. I'm here. I'm here.

I'm here. he says works flow out of that. Does it say whether the works are perfect or not?

Not as a basis for justification. No, it doesn't say it's perfect because Paul struggled with his, he's going to bring it up.

He already brought up in Romans 7, Paul struggled with his sin. What Charlie brought up earlier.

That's his flesh. I get it. I'm in agreement with that. Oh wait, so the body's sinning, but the person's not really sinning.

Person's a soul and the Bible describes the stole a man as his spirit and his flesh I'm not even gonna go see the kingdom in this flesh.

Anyway, that's impossible according to first Corinthians 15 So why would you bring that up?

Are you believing a ghost in the machine or something? Sure, I just got first Corinthians 13.

Do I have to guide you? Oh, hold on. No, I would only know if you're a Sort of Dolitz or something like that regard that Hold on let's go to verse

First Corinthians 15 as if your spirit is not sitting but your flesh is sitting I'll be it was their spirits, but that was earthy.

Let's start with verse 50 Okay. Now this flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God neither doth corruption inherit corruption

Well, I'm detailer. I mean I even work out for a 52 year old man, and I'm I'm not 25 anymore.

It's pretty obvious Behold I show you a new mystery or I show you a mystery. We shall not all sleep

We shall be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye At the last one for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed

Where this corruptible must put on incorruption in this moral must put on immortality So when this corruptible should

I put on incorruption in this mortal shall have immortality then shall be brought to pass The same that is written death is swallowed up and picked.

Okay, that's my point. I I'm not gonna see you the Lord in my current condition is my point to you man.

We both admit the physical body's gonna flood the Decay and that it will be resurrected later on God doesn't

Order if you're using an argument to say well my spirit is not sinning But my flesh is sinning because you said your flesh

I go. Is that distinct from your spirit? Is that how you're using it? I need to know how you're taking that because you just throw these terms out there

I go without no definition. Yes, are you taking it? Okay, where do you get that from? Well? Yeah, wrong if you go to Romans is

I thought it was pretty specific. I mean Right. No because I laid out the Bible teaches the wholeness of you a man when it refers to the soul and I go over numerous

Scriptures to prove this point, but don't have the time to go through it. We do a study of the word soul It's not just the immaterial aspect the man.

It also refers to his body It refers both to soul and or to spirit and body Whatever the soul the spirit does the soul does as well wherever the soul does the spirit does as well

It's ever divorced from the body as a holistic view of man

And even there's numerous scriptures that call the soul of man. It's including both aspects of them So you don't get to just jump in and go what happened?

He's doing it, but the other half ain't It's the whole I am

NOT claiming that I have not done sinning yet. I have sinned I'm just saying from when I'm also reading before I get my new nature put on by him then

We'll have the inability to sin, okay, but we are right It's possible to be done before that to be sinless

I didn't I'm not doing it yet. I'm not I'm not one of those Who where do you get that from? Okay, what verse of change you have a burst of makeup back up that theological assertion because you just made one but I'm here

I'm like you give commentary. I give commentary on 19 mark 10. No what

I give every single time I brought the theological assertion. I brought it up. It's not for this last one because there's a lot of I Okay, I know you don't like that.

You don't agree with me, but it doesn't matter I mean you based the argument on this division of man.

I go. Where do you get in that? Well again, it's possible to do anything and that includes anything man that that's my point to you what?

What do you mean what Philippians 413? I've said this before Levi can

I ask you a question? Sure. Okay. How long you been a Christian? Well, I'm 52 give me a minute, okay 35 years, okay

Have you reached perfection yet? Have you known anybody since you've been a Christian reach perfection?

Not to my knowledge no as Paul reached perfection I only know what's outside of the cannon a little bit on his history.

So I but I would guess no, okay So, you know, nobody you have it. Paul has it has anybody in the

Bible besides Jesus reach perfection? Not to my knowledge according to Second Corinthians 5 he was the only one he's always been under sin for us, right?

But you still why I know that but he became He who knew no sin, huh, but don't hold it out that man can't become perfect Huh, I didn't know no

I said, I know nobody I've admitted that but I still think it's possible to do but nobody's done already

So, oh, it's not it. It's not possible So I think what your problem is, you don't know the difference between justification and sanctification

Can you tell me the difference I don't know what your definition of it is

Well, I want you to tell me What's the difference? Well just occasion. I'm justified through Jesus Christ, you know as far as sanctification

You're talking more holiness from a messianic point of view, which I'm at times I'm you know,

I'm holy because we're to be a holy people a kudos people Hey guys, I'm not And at times you're not holy.

This is Charlie. Hey, it's it's really been lively. Yeah I I'm just two minutes and 15 seconds short of this being a four hour

Stream so I I hate to say you and we need to go but we kind of do

I got to wake up in five hours Yeah, I've got a

Take care of a lot of animals with my wife and I probably should yeah Cover a lot, but I appreciate

I appreciate this to be late in an intense discussion Well, I appreciate the participation with you guys.

It's it's always always good when when we can dialogue together in in civil tones like we are in Right in disagree in an agreeable way, that's fine.

It's if Paul said there needs to be Disagreements among us. In fact, he used the words heresy among us before the word heresy took on such a negative

View it just meant factions or parties or different points of view

The the philosophers call it a dialectic where you can come together two people and argue out hammer your points against each other and you might both walk away after the dialectic with a

Improved position then you came there with you might not agree with each other's Charlie You will come you will come you'll come out with it with a better with a sharper.

I Check you out. I admitted Charlie I vetted you and from what I can see you're probably most educated guy up here and I'd like you

Maybe one of these days you could explain to us The difference of philosophy back then like Paul was writing about collages as compared to philosophy now

You you've just betrayed your terrible fell ability because I'm really not that smart There's a lot of people there.

Well, I wish I knew half of what they've forgotten all day He's dealing with the Greek ones and well, he specifies them in Act 17

Luke does anyway, the Epicurean and Stoke philosopher So he's encountering Epicureans and Stoke floss there the history of philosophy

But yeah in general we bring it up all in general. They we would go into our day throughout the centuries

Yeah, all the way up to the 21st century What's been extolled is after the traditions of men that which is not after Christ when he brings it up there

Don't be taken captive by he says beware of it doesn't say don't study philosophy It just says beware of it. Just like you know, it says beware go in a swimming pool

Don't go swimming it says beware of it when you go in there and study this because the point of doing that is from a biblical apologetic

Standard to know your enemy better than they know themselves in order to refute them and cast them down. It's like Corinthians 10 5

I Know the history pretty well, but you guys are more I like I have to go into Stravinsky Cordon says in later news

Greek is a more to the Hebrew I think you guys know the Greek much better and you could look into this

Now Charlie made that clear Well, if I had had the opportunity to sit at the feet of camellia,

I might have been half as sharp as Paul Well, good point with all of us I'm looking at Colossians 2 17.

I think the ESB and the NASB which I read with a KJV and so on Which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ.

I'm looking at that Right, the substance is Christ Okay, but simple question this is future which are a shadow think correct

Because the NIV which I think is horrible which were a shadow Oh, you know, it's like wait a minute the

English alone. It just totally changes it now Which is very yeah the English alone You miss the idea that you're not to embrace the shadow that'll get you nowhere you embrace the substance that casts a shadow

Which is Christ? That's who we embrace Not the idea of him or the

Christ consciousness as some religious Organizations would have you believe but the the person of Jesus Christ himself our advocate we embrace him

And and that's what we're we're looking to not the shadow exactly

Levi you part of our discord server at all. Okay, so you're confirming it Dennis That's it

Well, what it says And I got to be embraced but the substance.

Yeah. Anyway, yeah, you're That's it. If I can go to your discord,

I'll probably that'll be great But I'm not going back on there for the silliness that I saw I don't know if you guys have ever heard of this chat site that I was on a few years ago

Pal talk And Yeah, I've never seen anything. I've never seen he's

I'm like what planet are these people on so I quit it and Right. Yeah, they go to the other server.

You just stay in our nook of the woods. It's House there. I mean, I even loved it in the intense argument and I did have one good argument when

I think about it a few years ago with a guy named Lewis Virgilio Leroy but I wrote

People are crazy They're just you know, and I can see why they're behind the screen

So if I'm just when I went on discord, it was just as bad to be honest Yeah, I I like Lou rug, but he rides some terribly unattractive hobby horses

And he rides them into the ground and they're they're getting him nowhere really fast

But he seems like a sweet guy I mean otherwise, right? Yep If you want to send me a link

Yeah, let me put in the chat here and then you know, I'll give you my Harvard I'll prove you in there and then you'll be on there.

You can just have an audio chat anytime There's people in there, you know Yeah, I'll have my wife help me with the techno stuff guys.

Okay, you see that there Yes, I do Yep Okay, give me a minute

Don't kick me out yet then because I'm kind of um, that's right

First with the techno area that part of my brain is a little smooth But It's coming.

It's going into calm org so that That's your discord. It's not the name of that.

Just like yeah website. No. Yeah It's still proud

I'll put Levi. Oh wait restoration It's asked me.

What should everyone call you? I don't want to be called. My gmail is restoration route at gmail .com

I'll just give you my My nickname on there, whatever you want people to call you.

This is my youtube aka leave icon continue But I'd like to have to with I don't care who it is

Charlie spine Matt yester or Matt slick since he had to leave He wanted to do more of an official debate.

I'd like to hit a debate channel say like the gospel truth I wouldn't mind modern -day debate, but that channel is so busy and big now that we'd have to wait for months to get on Yeah, James Coons is very successful with it but yeah still processing a lot of people one

I don't know if I should be saying names about who I was on with that discord in the beginning, but No, there's a lot

Did you know Well, it's a guy who's now in in the camp they're down in Texas with Chris Laisala you've ever heard him

Gotta be kidding me. Okay, did you know you have alt click a message to mark is it her market is unread?

What do I do here? Oh Just log in and it should serve with your server list get started, please.

Oh There's just a few questions. Just you Just say you agree with the rules and as your religious or secular categories

You just I'm giving my birthday first I have yes No, we don't require birthday on there my age

Just barely know you're male. Well, I'm not Well, you just have people the roles and there are certain tags that just show your religious affiliation whether you're male or female

So when people see you in the chat, they know you're a guy you hold of this particular viewpoint Okay, I got that.

I'm hitting next It's going through a process again

Claim your account. Okay email. Oh Now I'll make up my own password

Okay, you're so sure count everything gotcha. Oh somebody asked me where that Verse was that talked about their needs be factions among you

That's in that's in the first Corinthians 11 Right Around verse 19,

I think Hey guys, I think we're having a problem Yeah, see I've already got all come because of when

I used to be on And I don't remember your old Hey Clint, it doesn't go anywhere

So you just same email you have to remember your old password Unless you have to set the whole new one on a different email or something but I Need your help

What That's looks people offer me to come into discord,

I mean not now, but I didn't get on with His court used to be on there was not one of them his court.

No cryptic cryptic Kevin. Thanks for dropping that I didn't see you in the text. Okay, you're right

Yeah, can I change the past or do I have to remember the old past oh Let me try this guys

You might have a reset thing on there. If you can get access to your email You can say hey, I forgot my password you can ask for like a reset

No, send you an email with a link you can establish a new one. I have to do that. But I think yeah

He's whispering the old password to me home. All right, cool beans Yeah, like you set up on there it's just easier for people to connect

Just whenever they're available. So wait for like a live stream or something. So right

Yeah, this works. It's not work Okay, look

It's everybody's watching me laugh and I'm sure but I'm not happy You won't find me laughing because if it ever sounds like if it ever sounds like I know what

I'm talking about with technology It's a definite mistake Hopefully you're not as bad as me

Okay, I'm just gonna take over for a minute guys, all right, no problem

I Can see

I'm on their phone fine your phone whatever Okay, so What are we doing here

Does anybody know what to do here Oh tell her Matt what you were trying to well

I was thinking I'm not sure what the promise would be on there but if he's getting the login general login screen there and he tried to log in with his

Email and then a password and he probably forgot what the password was There's probably a button on there you hit to say hey if you forgot your password click

Okay, there should be an option down discord there under the account settings to say, you know, I forgot password

They would say some sort of link or some sort of email or to your email link there

It'll specify with the specific link and they'll send you to late so you can reset your password and set up a new one

Let's use your email as a verification that that's the original account set up You have to forget it. You say no their contact the right person to reset it, you know

You get to reset your password This is an unclaimed account claim it before it's lost

That's just under that username to be established I would think yeah, and I It doesn't say anything about change your password

Okay, that's established He may establish the name but but not giving it a step verification right to lock him into it.

Yeah Right Email set the password

It's good talking to you guys if you're Roddy if the panel is done by time I get back

I look forward to talking to you again Sure thing says you must agree to the rules

Yeah You must agree to the rules

Do I just say agree? Oh Yeah, that just tells me you're not going to be naughty on purpose.

Yeah, just on the numerator bullet points there agree whoever religious You just do them and I said agree

Can you see my typing? Yeah, see the second point

Particular religious or secular categorization Christian atheists particular denomination

But would be helpful there. We can put up a specific tag. So that identifies what your position is and then we were moderators so we can just Okay So, what do

I type just miss Ionic, okay Yeah But it still says

Here, this is an unclimbed account It may send you an email where you have to click a link to complete the circuit

If he used an email or if he used his telephone it might come to the telephone where you click on the link and that completes your account

I Maybe I should open up the email that I'm sorry.

I'm going to go in and see if you're seeing the server That's right, we'll be quick I'm gonna see because you're obviously in the server and you're seeing that listing of questions

So I'm gonna change the account put tags on you. That should probably clear it up It's anything else on the discord side, you know, you have to resolve that but I think it might just be the server settings here

She's already got Yeah, I was gonna say the first time

I tried it she's gotten even further than I did so you're on the right track Which one's

Matt's leg? I'm posting under his label, but he's left the room

Are you the one with the white beard? Yeah, that's me. I'm Charlie. Oh Okay, so match lick is the one that's not on the screen, right?

Not right now, no, he it's his room and and he has fled

He has run from the home I heard so Okay, well

I think if you're if you're on the okay messy Alec Jew Or no, we're just see on it we're followers of the way

I don't see anything on my email

What you call it you're fine, I think you're fine the discord side Let me just I'm just gonna temporarily put this on as Christian male just for now

Alright, you must claim claim account This User settings

We go back to the karma server, do you see a whole bunch of rooms off? Please add an email and password

Add an email claim your account No longer your account what?

Keeps asking me for a password and I don't Know it, but you're typing in Your current password

Let's try if that goes through Okay Hey flame flame not a

This is ridiculous They're gonna tell big to the earth couldn't tell you about the other things are prompting you for but at least if you saw the

Text chat and you were typing in it, which you did I've already signed the role so you should have access to the other rooms in the server

You should see me in the general chat under the general voice chat with my username. I'm the only person in the room right now

It's telling me that my email already is registered but I can't figure out how to change password

Please Add an email password claim your account. Oh, you already did because you're in the karma server right under Levi con

Yeah, but it just won't I'm in my privacy account connecting discord natro parents text boy

This car You see the karma circle off to the left, you know that list your servers on the left there

You should have the karma server on there. It says car M and big blue letters You click on that and you're in that Discord screen and inside the server and you see the text chat there where we ask you the questions

You said agree agree Messianic off to the left there You'll see me and Charlie off to the left in those rooms.

You see me and Charlie spy in the general voice chat We scroll down On that another screen now

Back to those, right Okay. Yes my click in the circle. That's off to the left.

It says see a RM. Just click on that icon action

Act your account. Oh Wow Yeah, that's not letting me go in.

Um Opening discord app

Matt History invited you. Okay, that you

Yeah Can you see these on the left is are you seeing my share screen?

It says connections, please choose one special discord

Interrogations, I don't know what that is

Okay, now Now I see I would add that Jesus function

Charlie spying Slickbot That what you're asking me to look for Well, I'm inside this room right here.

If you see it on the share screen, I click on that It puts me in there with if you go down you'll see

In the general room, you'll see myself and Matt yester right there.

Okay, I'll be a der Asakari Okay, that's what you're talking about.

Well, if you if you if you If you join us here in the

In this one you click on this one and you'll come in.

Okay, you're talking about on the cell phone Mmm, well, this is on my computer.

I'm sharing my computer screen Yeah, I'm gonna have to go back to stream yard to see that probably

Okay. Oh, yeah. I thought you were on stream yard You are with us. Yeah Well, let me let me increase the size of it

Karma dark or Yeah, I'm going back into stream yard yet again, and I'm accepting you again

And it's probably gonna go back to the same chat room

That I was in Okay, you see the text chat there You'll see me typing in here.

I'll say This is Matt My text pop -up

I'm waiting for it to load now. He's got so many windows

Type tender or Egypt plus anything to find gift for that topic

Okay, I must be making your And viewers go to sleep

We can always resolve the text issue tomorrow or whatever, you know, as long as he has connection with Charlie or whatever

But that account is on the car server So if you get that result on there and get access which you already have access to the server the accounts approved

I saw your questions or the questions answered there. See Okay, Matt slick playing help

Matt yester mod server manager. Yeah off to the right.

You'll see the listing of roles and so like that there General text announcement bot command

I'm looking for now here Scroll down on that same screen where you see those things general test

Bible study test of a room test scroll down You'll see voice channels. You'll see my name under the general

You just click on general and it adds you to the discord discussion So you have access to the server you just are all set up Okay, I just said hello did that work

Uh, let me see I just clicked off of that screen in general chat

Boom oh, okay. You sent me a private message, right? Oh, that's a

DM to me, right? That's a That's a private message so we know

On the left hand now, you don't have to send it front You don't have to send a front request But if you click back on the left hand side of your screen where you see at the very top

That's your home button below that. You should see the car M White logo with the blue letters you just click on that circle

With those letters on it that takes you in back into our server It'll take you from your DMS that you just sent me you sent me a private digital message

Click back on a server and that will bring up the whole screen where you see the various rooms

The text channels are first and then the voice channels are down below on the left the main text green

Do I do start video call? No, that's under that's you're still under the

DMS You're still under the DM session you're still in the upper Portion of your screen the upper left -hand corner is what you're currently on you need to click on one of the circles below that You should see the car

M Logo you want to click on that specific icon. They'll take you back into the car

M server No, not calm calm just on the discord screen that you're just on or you're sending me a digital message below Right And I'll say hello again

Did you get me again? Yes, I'm gonna put mine right below it see mine pop up your general text, yeah, okay, okay, sir

Yeah below that when you want to add you want to enter into a voice channel It's one of the voice channels down below the text channels

Each time you click on one of those text channels You take you in that text channel where you can type various text off to the right hand side

We click on a voice channel. It adds your audio mic to discussion. No, then we'd be speaking

Is that what we're trying to get into? You already have access to and everything I guess so whenever he wants to come back on you guys should already be set up As long as you have your head set on I have an unmute and then

I have Definitely unmute and yeah, definitely just make sure you have

Yeah What's that you can do video on there

Okay, is that what y 'all are doing or Most people just prefer to do audio, but every once in a while, we'll do some video chats

So if people want to do it, so well, I see something called debate down here. Is that y 'all?

Well, that's part of it. But just above there says general with a little speaker icon next to it if you hit general you'll join us in there and you can

Join us with audio. There you go. You're right in there with us. Yep Once you get off a stream yard, you go back into there.

There's all your mic and stuff I guess hooked up ready, you know, it says you and you will hear each other and there we go.

Yeah Okay, now I got it Yep, perfect You did a lot better than I did when

I tried it. That's for sure Okay voice connected Do I need to do video or screen or what?

Yep, as long as you I meet your mic then the voice goes through into the room. Yep Then you're talking into the room, there you go, you just muted it you can meet you can meet your mic and you can mute your headphones if you want to take a break and just Go do something, you know

Leave the headphones. Okay. Well, maybe I can go do something and get him back in here

You just tell the hard work for Okay, we'll stay in that discord because I'm gonna be closing the stream yard stream

I'm gonna be closing that out so Yeah, we got a minute

Right. Oh Yeah, okay. Well, thank hey, thanks for for walking us through that Matt because I wouldn't have been able to do it

It's been been so long since I was successful and poking around and doing what I did

I didn't even at the time remember how I actually did it So yeah, no chance of me remembering how

I did it now, but I do know my stream yard mic is canceling out my

Stream yard mic. So when I close here, we'll maybe I'll pop over and Talk to you.

All righty. So do we leave do we leave the live stream? I'm going what

I'm gonna end that right now Okay, so we'll join you in discord. Thanks.