Matt Slick Bible Study - 1-3-18

All right, we'll see it comes on here on the feed I can watch give it a few seconds to I'm gonna talk

I don't have anything planned at all Except maybe something that happened on the radio today, which is

I thought was interesting And I used a particular verse that we've heard me you guys have heard me quote a thousand times but I use it in a different way and it stumped this

This Catholic guy in the radio and I might be worth discussing a little bit whatever And then what we're gonna do tonight is

I just take Q &A anybody's got any questions on Facebook instead of me doing a study. We'll just do

Facebook. We'll just do Bible study I mean, we'll do Facebook and YouTube and We'll just do some

Q &A from that so that's what I think we should do. Yeah. Yeah.

So anyway, I don't think I know what I'm gonna plan. I don't know what's gonna happen here. All right.

So anyway, let's pray. We'll just get started. Lord Jesus. Thank you for this time and I ask Lord that you would bless it nourish us with your word the truth of what it is you have for us

Lord. I asked for your your gracious insight into your word into the truth that you revealed

Lord. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to be able to teach and I hope

Lord that by your grace you would just open up hearts and minds of others to be able to hear your word and understand it.

We ask this your precious name. Amen. All right. So what we're doing tonight,

I got the Facebook open right here. So if anybody wants to ask questions on Facebook, you can do that.

And also on YouTube, I'm looking at that as well. And so we've got a few people who are logged in right now and it'll increase as the night goes on, because I don't have anything really prepped.

We'll just do an open kind of a session here and see how it goes. This is the first time this year, and I'm still making decisions on continuing, changing, doing what a lot of things are happening in my life right now that are really kind of difficult to deal with.

And wife's health, potential move, the car ministry, things like this.

It's just, you know, it just happens in life. We go through seasons of difficulties and good times, bad times and hard times.

So having to deal with some of that, I'm super going to get chalk and hold on a sec while I get some chalk.

There we go. And so if you've got questions and comments, you can put them there. So on the radio show today, something interesting happened.

A guy called up, I don't know if anybody heard, nobody here probably did, but I know that some here like Charlie Spine did, heard the radio show when a

Catholic called, but he said he's not a Catholic. He says he's a Protestant. And he thanked me for the CARM website and he's been using it for years, but he's been looking into justification, sanctification from a

Roman Catholic perspective and that he is leaning that way. Well, actually he's not leaning that way.

He believes in it because he was defending it. And what I, it just as often happens, what

I teach when I'm answering questions, and this is not a braggart, not in any way, but it's often happens is all of a sudden something new will come in.

Oh, let me show you this way. And that's what happened today while I was on the air.

It occurred to me to use a standard verse I've been quoting for a long time,

Colossians 2 .14, and use it a little bit different way. Not a big deal. So what

I did was in the context of our discussion, the Roman Catholic, I'll call him a Roman Catholic, even if he's watching, he'll say, no,

I'm not a Roman Catholic. He's certainly defending Catholicism and its heresy. And the Roman Catholic Church is not a true

Christian church. It's a false church. And, and so I can quote a lot of stuff from my website, from the documents, from their site, where they teach justification by works, basically.

And I wanted to go through two verses, two pericopes, but I only got to one of them. And I'll probably do both tonight to talk about something.

So Colossians 2 .14 says, Jesus, having canceled the certificate of debt, consisting of decrees, which is hostile to us, out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

All right. Now I've used that verse so many times in so many ways. Now what happened was I didn't bring this up right away.

I was talking to him and he was telling me, I don't remember his, and I'm trying to represent him accurately.

So if he's watching, if somebody who's watching remembers the conversation,

I don't accurately represent it as not my intention, but he was confusing justification and sanctification.

And he was saying that justification, you've got, basically what you have to do is be good and follow certain things and you'll be fine.

And that it's not a strictly legal issue. And so what

I did was I said, okay, I'm going to show you that your position is wrong. And I said, Jesus, having canceled the certificate of debt.

And I said, as I've always said so many times, you know, sin is breaking the law of God. First John three, four.

And Jesus says, our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, forgive us our debts. And Matthew 6, 12, forgive us our sins in Luke 11, four.

So Jesus equates sin with legal debt and it is a legal debt. And so Jesus canceled the sin debt at the cross.

Colossians 2, 14. I asked him, where was the sin debt canceled? And he said, he pinned and hawed a little bit.

He had to think about it, which is fine. You know, he's a person. Okay. And he said, well, at the cross, I said, okay.

So it's canceled at the cross. Now think about this in light of the issue of Roman Catholic doctrine of justification, which is a process you go through right now.

The process of Roman Catholicism of justification is through the sacraments. You get grace infused into you.

And he used the word infusion. You get it infused into you and you are made more righteous by the more grace you have infused into you, the more justified, the more righteous you are.

That's flame and frigging heresy. All right. Let me just say that unequivocally, clearly, that's from the pit of hell.

It's a load of theological crap. Or if you know Polish, it's guvna. And so having said that, let me continue on with my delightful insight into this.

So I hate doctors that damn people, Roman Catholic church.

Sheesh. So, okay. We're back on.

All right. There we go. So this stuff upsets me. Roman Catholicism upsets me because I know what it does.

I actually started using some of the similar arguments I use with Mormons against him, but nevertheless, nevertheless.

So, so in light of this, since they teach infusion and justification is a process you have to go through in order to make yourself more righteous with God by the infused grace of God through the sacraments.

All right. If Colossians 2 .14 is true, he canceled the certificate of debt at the cross. Then I, if I remember correctly,

I said, I said, when was the sin debt canceled?

He said at the cross. I said, was it canceled for everybody? He actually said, no, it's good because he said it right.

He goes, if it were canceled for everybody, then nobody could go to go to hell.

It'd be universalism. I said, you're correct. And we know that people are going to hell. So he didn't cancel the sin debt for everybody, right?

Who did he cancel it for? And he says, I'm not getting into Calvinism right now. And I said, wait a minute.

I'm just going through scriptures. I'm asking you questions and you're the one who brought up Calvinism. He says,

I know what you're doing. You're asking the questions a certain way. I'm just asking for what it says. These are just questions. This is just what it says.

I mean, this is not leaning anywhere. This is what it says. He canceled the sin debt. And I said, the point

I'm trying to make is this. If he canceled the sin debt at the cross, then how is it that you have to presently continue to do good things and keep the commandments in order to have your sins forgiven, have your sin debt canceled when it was already done at the cross?

That's the question. It was really simple. Okay. And he paused.

He, you know, he saw the point and he didn't know what to say and for a while. And then he came up with this stuff of, well, um, you know, it's, it's, uh, the present sins are forgiven, but your future ones are not.

I said, all the sins were future to Jesus at the cross. And I said, they're all there.

And then he said, well, no, the present ones today, but your future ones are not. And I want to say, put your hand in front of your face and look to your left.

And you know, and this is the kind of argumentation that you had to go through. Now think about this. This is, sorry, but it's, it's really bad thinking because if it's the case that Jesus only, how does this work?

He only forgave gave some of your sins up to what to today. What about yesterday?

Yeah. But tomorrow I think I asked him that. He said, no, wait a minute. Why is today today?

You know, what's, what's about today. That is the dividing, uh, line, the dividing place.

It just didn't make any sense. His arguments just fell apart at this point. And the reason it falls apart is because Roman Catholic theology sucks canal water.

It's wrong. And it's just, it's not true. Now I'm going to read some Catholic stuff here.

Sorry. Roman Catholicism gets me going. It's like a, you know, it's a burr in your underwear.

Fires me up, you know, yeah. If you have, you know, whatever

I can make some stupid comments, even more stupid comments, I guess people would say, look, this is what it says in paragraph 2068 of the catechism of the

Catholic church. It says this so that all men may attain salvation through faith, baptism, and the observance of the commandments.

So you keep it, but you know what the commandments and uh, check this out. This is, uh, come on.

I just saw this today. Here we go. So, uh, the authority of the magisterium extends also, excuse me, the specific prince precepts of the natural law.

Now the Catholic catechism says that the 10 commandments are an express representation of the natural law.

That's paragraph 2070. So 2070 says the 10 commandments are an express expression or an expression of the 10 commandments expression of the natural law.

So the authority of the magisterium extends also to the precepts of the natural law. Remember that includes a 10 commandments because their observance demanded by the creator is necessary for salvation.

Paragraph 2036. Now folks, if you were in, um, in hell at, uh, an,

I like Asian food, an Asian hell restaurant, and you wanted the curse cookie, not a fortune cookie, you would open it up.

And this is what it would say in there on some of them. Okay. And this is the kind of stuff.

Yeah. That's what I say. Uh, it's kind of stretched for that imagination, but you know, you'd be good.

Look what it says. You got to keep the natural law to be saved. Okay. You know, take some, put some fork and just remember to do that.

You get a, you're insulting people. Did you know that if you take forks, uh, if you take chopsticks and put them vertical in a, in food and leave it, that's rude.

It's a sign of, um, of deathers. I forgot this. It's really rude.

You don't do it. And, uh, so somebody did some art thing or something for an advertisement and he put the chopsticks laying across and apparently that's wrong and offended to people.

That's offensive. There's so many whiners in this world. Yeah. Why are you sensitive?

I don't like your hat. Your hat offends me. Oh, it says Glock on there. So it doesn't offend me. Okay. I'm not offended by his hat because it says

Glock on it. So it's a good hat. Your beard, your face, my face.

Well, that, that, that explains a lot. My face is offensive. That's what my wife says.

She's married me a long time. And I've noticed this more and more when we're married, that she looks at me after she hasn't been with me for a something.

I walk over to her and she goes, you know, there's a little bit more frequently that's happening now. I think it's because I'm getting older.

I'm 61. She still looks good. I go, yeah. So, uh, that's how it is with the ladies.

They look better than guys. We look like we've been mauled by large groups of animals. So anyway, back to this stuff.

Uh, so then he started saying, well, of course that it's not all of our sins are forgiven.

I said, well, wait a minute. Let's go back to Colossians 2 13, because the immediate verse says, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

And he said, well, that all doesn't really mean that all of our transgressions are, are forgiven.

It has to do with the temporary ones now. I forgot what it was, but I'm like, oh, geez. And by then the show was

But it's just a good example of, of bad theology. Now, which

I think is interesting is, yes, I'm a Calvinist. I'm a five pointer. Um, and people don't like that sometimes, but the thing is, you know,

I'm reading, reading scriptures and they go, oh, you're a Calvinist. You're reading that verse. So that's what it says.

And so Calvinism is bad. Yeah. Calvinism is bad. But when I read the verse, you say

I'm a Calvinist, but read the scripture. So what does it imply? It implies that the verse is Calvinistic. You're putting words in my mouth.

You know, I get this a lot. So anyway, that's what happened on the radio today. And I thought it was interesting and, and stuff like that.

And over, since you guys are over, we had a nice little Bible study, didn't we? Yeah. You weren't there.

You were in there. You got about half of it. So for new year's Eve, uh, the spiritual people, we were in one side of the house and we were having a

Bible study and the other people were playing zombie dice. Oh, by the way, they were your zombie dice.

Someone gave them to me. I never bought them. And I've never played the game. My daughters gave me the walking dead stuff, but I don't watch that show anymore.

And, uh, so some of us were spiritual and we went through some stuff and that was a lot of fun.

You may want to hear your heresy on end times. Heresy? Oh man. Now I'm offended.

That's right. Oh, see, I got offended. I'm not offended, but you know, people are so whiny little babies.

All right. So, uh, so, uh, let's see. We've got anything on Facebook for me to look at to, uh, any comments?

Okay. Where is it? From Alistair Jack. Let's see.

I'll put see all. And, um, we'll see how this goes tonight.

Come on. Yeah. Please deal with the bullying on this

Facebook page. Oh, I'm supposed to go underneath this thing.

That's right. Okay. Here we go. Okay. My bad. Examining all verses in the new Testament dealing with justification.

Oh, okay. That's a link to stuff. Um, I don't see any, what was her dad?

Where's nothing to ask? I don't see anything.

Yeah. All I see is, uh, Charlie, I know he's doing a great job of putting stuff in. He's awesome.

Look at this. A hundred people reached already. Yeah. Go ahead. I'll repeat it.

Monson just died. When did he die? Last night. That's night.

I poor guy. Oh, he's in trouble. He's not, not liking life.

Okay. So he just died last night. He's not liking his new life. The Mormonism is a false gospel.

Should we admire Mormon's humanitarian works, welfare system, et cetera. And how does that tie in?

You can't get good fruit from a bad tree. You said we admire, um, their works. Uh, so what makes something good?

Okay. So what makes something good?

All right. Is, uh, we have to have a standard kind of remember this from seminary.

It was really good. A standard, which is the Bible and the goal, which has to be the glory of God.

Okay. And then we have to have a standard, which is the Bible and the goal, which has to be the glory of God. So, and there's a third thing is stay on the motive.

All right. I believe that's it. Now a standard has to be the word of God.

So that's the Bible. All right. And that reveals to us what

God wants and the purpose is ultimately for the glory of God. And the motive is why we're doing something well, ultimately should be for the glory of God.

But so if I see a lady crawling, I mean, I'm crawling, walking across the street and I want to help her out with her groceries or whatever.

And I say, Hey, let me help you. And okay. Now why am I doing that? Well, you know,

I'm doing it because the Bible says, uh, help little old ladies across the street because it glorifies

God. And my motivation is to show love to people because what the word of God says, basically that's a good work.

Now an atheist could do the exact same thing that an atheist could help a lady across the street. Now on a human level, that's good, but on divine level, not using the word of God, not for the glory of God and his motive.

Well, we don't know what his motive is. We have to ask different atheists, you know, maybe just want to be nice, just help. That's fine.

But basically without these, you don't have anything good. Now Romans three, 10, 11, and 12 says that no man does good.

No one seeks for God. So on a human level, people can do good. They can do nice things, but on a divine level, nothing is good because a righteous deeds are filthy rags before God, Isaiah 64, six.

So that basically is how we're going to look at it. So are they, what was the question was on who, what was it? You can find it.

Charlie reposted it. Oh, he did either on YouTube or Facebook. Uh, yeah, it's, you know, it's the same thing.

I'm just seeing, see me teaching my belly hanging out. Look at that. I got to go on a diet. Yeah. I gained a lot of weight over the holidays, man.

I did. Oh yeah. Oh no, I was not for like a week.

I was not vegetarian because everybody's got everything covered. He's like, Oh, come on.

You know, I can eat a cucumber while you got all this stuff. So it didn't work out, but, um, he actually had two questions.

The first one was, how do you, they can hear Lindsay, by the way, it's just not as good as you.

Yes. I'll speak loudly. It's coming up. Well, yeah. His first question is how does all of their good works and humanitarian work things tie in with it?

You can't get good fruit from a bad tree thing. And then the second question is, is it possible that some, not all

Mormons and JWs might be saved or is there absolutely no chance unless they leave their faiths?

Well, we'll do the second question afterwards. Um, humanitarian, uh, issues of say

Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses, they can do certain things. I just saw on meetup today, there's some atheists are going to go to the green belt and clean up.

That's a good thing to do. I could join them in doing that, you know, and, and, uh, and stuff.

They probably wouldn't like that. They probably wouldn't throw me out with the rest of the trash. But, uh, you know, that's okay.

Like I said, on a human level, that's okay. But it ultimately is not in any way good.

So I could just see them the other day at judgment. Uh, they go, why help clean up the green belt? Oh, you know, good.

It has no merit, no merit. If it was somehow good, how could it possibly really be good? Because God alone is a standard of righteousness and goodness.

And so it has to be judged by his standard, not by their own. And it has to be by him, not by their own.

And if they're going to do it by their own, then they're doing it for something that's not glorifying God. So no matter what they do, it's not a good work.

Now, can we join in Mormon, which Mormons and stuff to do stuff like that in one sense? Yes. One sense.

No, it's like, um, um, we want to join with the

Roman Catholics when they're doing anti -abortion work. Hmm. You know,

I think that's individual at that point. Um, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water and God can even use unbelievers and false religious systems to accomplish his will when the

Christians aren't doing their job and the vacuum is, is filled by others. Uh, but, um, uh, you know, it depends on the situation and stuff because I don't want to get any credence to false systems.

But then again, sometimes you got to unite and do things together. And so I think it's, you know, would

I stand up with an atheist against abortion in front of a place? If he has a stop abortion now, he's an atheist and I can sit up with a sign next to him, stop abortion now, you know, am

I with him? Yes. Am I with them? No. You know, it's just, there's no black and white on this.

So it'd be very difficult to answer the question universally for all situations. So it's tough, not looking too good there, man, just looking at you.

It's like, wow, I'm in one of those moods tonight. I guess I got to pick up. I'm stressed.

I'm under a lot of stress lately. So actually it's a nice beanie kind of thing. I don't know. Okay. What's the other question?

He's a good guy though. He really is. Oh yeah. The second part of the question though, can they somehow find salvation?

Oh yeah. Can they never leave? Can they never be saved unless they absolutely leave there?

Well, can a Mormon be saved? Yes. Can they still go to the Mormon church and be saved? Yes, they can. But not because they believe in Mormonism, but because they're not aware of what

Mormonism teaches and they're going to what church that they think is Mormon. And this can happen. You could have someone, for example, who believes that God is another planet becoming gods and handshakes.

And, you know, he's going to Mormon church for years and starts reading the

Bible for him or herself and starts realizing, wait a minute, something's wrong. And maybe after a while reads

Romans, reads Galatians and realizes salvation and forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

And that person could just one night say, Lord, I don't know who or what you are now. I'm confused, but I trust in just you and just this and just that.

You know, the best way he's got at that level and we're not saved by doctrine, but that kind of a work is the work of God, obviously.

And then he could still go into the Mormon church and still be confused. He could still say, well,

I think God gave that a planet. But here's the thing. I talk in more technical terms. A lot of people do about these kinds of things.

So is it possible that such a person could believe that and really be saved? I think yes, but not for very long, because I think they, you know, after a short while, they're going to go, you know, this doesn't make any sense.

And I can't adopt that. And that's because they're regenerate. So I think there's this gray area of time where our regeneration just takes a little time to manifest.

So in a technical sense, I think that's possible. However, if someone just says, look,

I believe God's given a planet. There's no problem with that. And blah, blah, blah. I'm sorry. They're not going to be

Christian. They're not going to be saved. You know, they deny the true doctrines and they deny who Jesus is and deny salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Well, then they're not going to be Christian and stuff. They could make all the professions they want. So it's like a universalist.

Can a universalist be a Christian? Technically? Yeah. Just because you're a universalist doesn't mean you can't go to heaven.

I have, I've encountered Christians who say, if you teach that you're a universalist, you can't be Christian.

I see nothing in the Bible that necessitates that as a doctrine, doctrinal division. It doesn't make me popular with a lot of people in my own reform camp, but that's,

I don't, I'm looking at scripture. I don't see it's taught in scripture that, that topic and other topics like that are necessary that divide you.

But nevertheless, that's what I think about that. So normally speaking, someone who's really regenerate will come out of Mormonism, come out of Jehovah's Witnesses.

And it won't take very long. So can they technically still be a Mormon and go? Yeah. And be

Christian? Yeah. For that short period of time until they leave. I remember, however, when

I was studying the cults back in the early eighties with Jerry and Mary and Bodine, and they were the right hand man and woman of Walter Martin, the guy who started the

Christian Research Institute. He was the original Bible Answer Man. And, um, wow.

This is my memory about that. Uh, wow. That just popped in. So, uh, sorry to get back on track.

So a woman came in to our class that we were studying and Charlie's listening.

I don't know if Charlie remembers this, but cause he and I were in a class together. This woman came in and she said that she'd become a

Christian, but she had been a Mormon for, I think her whole life or whatever. And she was driving down the 22 freeway heading

West on the 22. And she was listening to 107 .9, which is a

KYMS down in Southern California, which was the Calvary Chapel radio station at the time. And, um, she was listening to the praise music.

And she said that she was just listening and the worship of the

Lord, the adoration, that relationship with Christ, that, and she wanted that.

And she said, we don't have that in the Mormon church. We just don't have it. And she told,

I remember her telling us this and she said she was so disturbed by the contrast that she decided to pull over on the freeway, which is not a good idea to do in the 22.

And, but there's some areas what she could get over. And so she went on the shoulder of some area and, uh, she said, she just stopped and she reached out to God and said,

I don't know who you are, but I want you. I want what they have.

I want that relationship with Jesus. I just, I just looked at you. I just, I just trusted what you have.

And she said, instantly, she said, Mormonism is false. Just like that.

She said it was a revelation. She knew that Mormonism was a false church right when she prayed and trusted in Christ.

And she didn't do it with the perfect vocabulary that I might insist on theologically. On page 637 of the systematic theology on soteriology subsection

AB eight, say it this way. She just appealed to Christ. And, um, and I remember that she said, and instantly

I knew Mormonism was false. That to me was her conversion experience.

Just converted. Did she know everything about the Trinity? No. Hypostatic union, communicatio idiomata, imputation, justification, propitiation.

No, she didn't know about these things. And, uh, yet she was saved. Will she come out of Mormonism at that point?

Absolutely. And she did. She, she left it very quickly. Um, I don't know if she went back.

I think she probably did remember correctly. Maybe Charlie remembers. What? Oh, I have no idea what her name was, but Charlie might know.

Cause he was in the class with me. And is he talking about it? I don't know.

I have no idea who it is, but he, you know, he remembers things I don't remember. This is in Facebook or, uh, how come

I'm not seeing it in Facebook? Man, this is, this is not working.

Oh, she can get on camera now. Here comes the tech support. See right there.

See right there. See, that's it. That's, that's it. You're going to be on here in a second. There you go. See, there you are.

So how come it's not showing up here? Yeah. It is weird, huh? It is weird. See, she just said it was weird.

It was so weird. There you go. Oh, now she opens the whole screen up. Make me look bad. So easily one click.

Now you got to do the victory dance. Like I do with my wife, the victory dance is like this.

And I do that when, uh, whenever I fix something on my wife's computer in the office, she goes, I hate it when you do that so fast.

And I switch her like this. That's right. So I do that. All right.

One time I fixed a computer problem with my wife on my wife's computer in less than one second, one second.

Oh, she had to watch me do the victory dance for like a full minute. Oh, all right.

Um, so how about on a, let's see, match luck live. Any questions, any comments coming in there?

I think that was Marge. Oh, I don't know who that was, but if you think so, um, but I remember that, uh,

Charlie, do you remember that you can type it in how joyous she was? I remember that. Yeah, I do.

Uh, Tulip just asking questions, right? Roman random topics. Okay. So we'll get back to Facebook. So what we're doing is an impromptu kind of study.

Let me know what you want to do. And if you've got questions, uh, just fire them at me. Let's see. Alistair, Jack, the

Mormon president, Thomas Monson died. Uh, we've got no Winnie Debra Klong. Shalom.

Hey, Shalom to you too. Uh, that's it. I don't think we have much going on. What's that?

Go back to YouTube and the very top Peter had a question for you. Okay. Uh, let's see.

Anonymous, anonymous lives. Can Mormons or JVs be saved so far? I've heard they can, if they repent and become

Christians. Um, Peter Bufoy. Hi, Matt.

Do you know anything about the Keswick movement? Oh, I used to, I forgot what it was also called the higher life movement, trying to find out if it's biblical, the church

I attend supports it really Keswick movement. Okay. Let me look.

K E S W I C K Keswick movement, higher life movement, uh,

Christian holiness in England. I'll do some research on that.

Incidentally, there's some research on the Quakers today. Boy, they in trouble. Uh, okay.

You have to do some research on it and see. So I can't tell you I'd have to look and see what it says, see what that is.

So I don't know. Holiness movements are often bad, even though they sound good, but holiness movements often get into the issue of righteousness by works, by law, the more holy you are, the better off you are with God.

And then you start judging other people, but it may not be the case. I'm just saying those are some of the common denominators and holiness movements.

Uh, they're all, they're into sinless perfectionism. Okay. That's what Charlie says. So, uh, yeah, that's, that's, that'd be bad news.

Sinless perfectionism. Like, um, what's his name that I debated in Montana, Jesse Morrell, uh,

Jesse and, uh, his cohorts, uh, would teach sinless perfectionism that you can get to the level of never sinning anymore.

And, uh, I just say, give me five minutes with them. I'll get them to sin. Trust me.

I'm that good. I am that irritating. I can make it sin. And, uh, it won't take long, maybe two minutes.

Huh? Ask my wife. So, uh, not that I want people to sin, but you know, when you're skilled and gifted in certain areas of being difficult,

I can bring out the, uh, depraved nature of people. They never do it again.

That reminds me of, uh, I mean, Doctrine and Covenants 82 .7. If you commit the same sin, you know, the same sin and all the former ones come back to you.

Yeah. That's a lovely DNC 82 .7. Yeah. So, uh, happy 2018.

Hey, way to go. So they're sinless perfectionism. Um, that to me, sinless perfectionism is one of the heights of arrogance in the

Christian faith to say that they don't sin anymore, which to me is part of the judgment of God upon them for believing the lie.

And, uh, they're self -deceived, um, to say they don't sin anymore is to keep the law perfectly in all aspects, in all areas, in all ways, all the time.

That's what sinless perfectionism would require. We don't sin anymore. Really? So you have no bad thoughts, no bad intentions ever.

That means you and your spouse get along perfectly all the time, right? Well, she's not that perfect, but I am, you know, that'd be all it'd have to be.

That's why we have problems. Cause I heard the woman you gave me, you know, Oh, that's how it would have to be.

You know, I could just see, I'd tell my wife, Hey, you know what I'm thinking of that I'm basically into sinless perfectionism now.

Um, I'm thinking of some good stuff. She would look at me like I was a complete moronic doofus and she would just say, uh -huh.

Yeah. Uh -huh. You don't sin anymore. That's right, honey. I don't sin anymore. Uh, she'd say, okay.

Um, yeah, she would, uh, you know, just, just go, that's nice to hear.

And then she'd go on to do something more important. She what? She'd move along.

That's what she would do. Just move along on it. Just in right down at the bottom.

I don't see anything. Uh, I see a tech support.

No, it's, uh, I know it's, it's at the bottom.

It's yeah. It's weird. I'm scrolling up.

Well, there's one at the very top. Matt, where'd it go? Great.

Just in right. That's at the, towards the top though. Is that, is that the Christian?

That one? Yeah. Okay. Is that the Christian should move on from his initial conversion experience to also experience a second work of God in his life.

This work of God is called entire sanctification. Um, different denominations have different views and different ideas and different labels.

What they call the second baptism, baptism, Holy spirit, entire sanctification, various things like that. Um, you know,

I don't find this kind of stuff in scripture. What we have is one faith, one Lord, one baptism, Ephesians four or five, and the

Holy spirit is in you. You don't get, um, you don't get more Holy spirit.

And once that you do, once that you don't, but I mean, he's, he's there in you. And it's like, I'm married to my wife.

I don't become more married a year later with her. We're married. That's what it is. The Holy spirit indwells you.

But what happens is some people call it the second blessing of the second. I don't have any problem with people calling it a second blessing in the sense that the

Holy spirit just, just shines his light brighter in your heart and awakens you. We've all had this happen to varying degrees.

Um, in our lives, uh, we can just read the scriptures and it's illumined to us in a different way.

We might be reviewing our conversation we have with our spouse, um, and realize we said something that wasn't good and we need to go repent.

Uh, I've had that happen countless times. Uh, so the Holy spirit can illumine us, but then there's a way when he, let's just say, pours himself out upon you with great strength and power.

And I had that happen to me. Um, when, after I was saved, uh, I think it was two or three years after I was saved.

Uh, I don't know. I just don't remember the, I don't remember what happened, uh, because I lost a whole month of memory after it happened.

I'm not kidding. I just, I remember shortly afterwards being absolutely on fire for the Lord and reading the

Bible for four to six hours a day and going to Bible study six times a week and, uh, reviewing what people say, what happened to you?

I don't know. And I remember at that time, it was a whole month where I could not recall. And now

I can't recall the whole decade, but, uh, back then it was a whole month and I was just on fire.

And I mean on fire for the Lord, insatiably on fire, just reading, constantly reading and reading and reading and studying the word.

And what was interesting is my brother, I have, I'm the oldest, but I have two younger brothers. And my middle brother was at, uh,

ORU, Oral Roberts University. And I think he was either in seminary at the time or just in Bible college there.

But I'm not sure which might've been seminary cause he has a master's of degree in theology.

I have a master's of divinity. And, uh, I remember sitting in a closet in a place

I was living in, uh, in Anaheim, California. And I was just sitting in a closet with a phone just leaning, you know, feet up on the wall, leaning and talking.

And I was talking about theology and I'd been on fire for six months at that point.

And, uh, he said to me, he goes, Matt, you've learned, you've learned in six months, what most of us take years to learn in college and seminary.

And, uh, I just said, praise God. And I mean, it was just full of, just full of that desire.

And the reason I'm talking about myself is not to talk about someone else I've heard. So I know what that is.

And, um, it was a tremendous movement and a tremendous time.

And I got so many memories of, of that and different, various, various things. So can this happen?

Yes, it does happen. Uh, the Holy Spirit certainly could convict us and move us and change us.

And, um, I call it a second blessing. That's fine. If you want to call it a second blessing, more of the

Holy Spirit, well, you know, not being more married. It's just, you're already married.

It's just somehow it's just better. And, um, at times and things like that. So in that sense, nope, excuse me, that sense, no problem.

I don't have a problem with that. It does happen. And I think we should seek it. Even though I'm a five point on millennial pedo -baptist non -cessationist covenantal

Calvinist, I believe we should seek that kind of thing because, um, it's what the spirit of God wants to move and do in us.

And, um, it's a wonderful thing to have happen. It is. That's right.

Amen to that. Okay. We got any more comments or questions? Yes. What?

Newton wants to know if you believe true saints will be raptured or pre -trailed? No, there's no pre -trail rapture.

It doesn't work. And then Newton immediately asked why are people so preoccupied with the rapture?

Because they want to get out of here because it's easy and it's comforting. You know, it's, it's, uh, you know, it's the feed me now thing.

It's the, I want to get out of here and I like it because it's going to be helpful. And most people are, are taught at churches, this stuff, you know?

So, um, pre -trial rapture stuff. Let me go to Matthew. Let's see. 24 and, uh, see if I can put this together without having my notes in front of me.

Um, verse 29 of Matthew 24, but immediately after the tribulation of those days.

Now, some people might say that's not the great tribulation. Uh, but immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

And the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Now it says immediately after the tribulation immediately.

So that's the great tribulation because that's what happens in the pre -millennial view. Uh, and the sun sign of the son of man will appear in the sky.

So this is not the, the, uh, the, some people say that they either tribulate seven -year period, the tribulation and the great tribulation.

And they say that Jesus was returning out of the, uh, before the tribulation and comes again after the great tribulation.

And so when it speaks in here of, on Matthew 24, 29, and it says, uh, but immediately after the tribulation of those days, they're talking about the first part.

So let me show you, if I can do this. So it'd be like this seven -year period.

So we'd have here, we have here, this is three and a half and three and a half.

And so this is called the trib, tribulation, and this is the great tribulation.

Now, so here immediately after the tribulation, they would say after the tribulation, which would, if their view is correct, uh, the moon will not give its light.

The stars will fall from the sky. The powers of the heavens will be shaken. And they'll say, some could say, well, yeah, that's when that's because it's the bad stuff starting to happen.

And then the son of a man will appear in the sky. Really? No, that appears, that happens here.

So, uh, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and they will see the son of man coming in the clouds of the sky with great power and glory.

That's here, not here. So the tribulation term is talking about can't be just here. It's the whole tribulation period and the great tribulation.

If you want to use that terminology, uh, and he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together his elect from the four winds from one end of the sky to the other.

So that means that he comes back, Jesus comes back here and the elect,

I know people go, you're Calvinist, aren't you? Jesus said, so what it says right there on the elect of the gathered.

So when does, when do the people gather after the tribulation period, after the tribulation period, that's when he gathers the elect together.

You don't find anything in Scripture that says, well, uh, he just, he, he gathers mostly the elect and then it comes back again for the rest of the elect.

It doesn't say that anywhere. It's just one return, one gathering that have the

Bible talks. And so Matthew, uh, 24, 29 through 31, uh, just basically that right there, that pericope negates the idea of pre -tribulation rapture.

He just does now. And it says, Matthew 24, Luke 17, as it was the days of Noah's social would be the days of the coming of the son of man where they were eating, they were drinking, they were giving in marriage to the day that Noah entered the ark and the flood came and took them all away.

Now, Matthew, 24 says they were giving in marriage as it was the days of Noah, right?

So it wasn't days of Noah. I'm writing this backwards. Noah. Oh man.

Okay. I'm going to do this cause it's bothering me. I'm being all about stuff. Let's put it up here as it was in the days of Noah, social would be the days of the coming of the son of man where they were eating or drinking, eating.

Okay. Eating, drinking. All right. The flood came in, took them all away, took them all away, right?

My writing is horrible. So the flood came and took them all away. And in Luke 17, in Luke 17, it says, it says there was a days of Noah.

They're giving him marriage. You're destroying them all.

All right. So the flood came and destroyed them all. So who was the one destroyed? These people, the same parallel.

So the ones that were taken are the ones who were destroyed. Okay. And Luke 17, the last verse of Luke 17, they asked

Jesus, where are they taken? He says, where the body is, the vultures gather. So at the time of Noah, I'm doing this for a reason.

At the time of Noah, the time of Noah, who was taken? The wicked.

The wicked were the ones taken out of the world, right? They were the ones destroyed.

And Noah and his seven others, they went into the ark, represents

Christ, the one door which God closed and they entered in. Now, having said that, let's go to, come on.

So again, who's taken? The wicked are taken, right? They're taken out of the world.

The wicked were the ones taken as it was in Noah's time. The wicked were the ones taken. What does it say in Matthew 13, 30, the parable of the wheat and the tares?

You know, the wheat's the good, the tare's the bad, the enemy sold the tare. Should we tear up the tares?

He says, no, allow both to go together until the harvest. And at the time of the harvest,

I'll say to the reapers, first gather up the tares, the wicked.

First gather up the tares, the wicked, and bind them in bundles to burn them and gather the wheat into my barn.

Who's the first ones taken when Christ comes back? The wicked. As it was in days of Noah, so shall be the days of the coming of the

Son of Man. Who's the one taken? The wicked. When Jesus comes back, who's taken first? The wicked.

So, in pre -tribulation rapture stuff, the rapture happens, you know, a seven -year period, it starts back up over there, the rapture happens, then

Jesus comes back, he gets everybody else, and then the

Pre -tribulation rapture, sorry, it doesn't work. When you cross -examine it with scripture, it falls apart quickly.

And so, don't put your hope in pre -trib rapture. Hope that it's true, but don't put your hope in it.

What? No, I have a comment for you. Oh, because you're pointing over to the tree. I'm pointing at you. Oh, me? Yeah.

So, it's a mistake, it's bad theology to break the tribulation up into one part and two parts, because the tribulation is the seven -year period.

It's only the three -and -a -half years of the second part that is the great tribulation, or the worse part.

Well, it does talk about great tribulation in a three -and -a -half -year period. Yes, I agree, you missed what

I said. Oh, you shouldn't break it up into two parts, like, for the return of Christ.

Like, Act 1 and Act 2, the first part of the movie, and the second part of the movie. Because the tribulation is the entire seven years, the three -and -a -half is the worst.

The great tribulation is the worst part of that seven years. So, it is referred to as the great tribulation, as a subset of the tribulation, but in Matthew 24, 29 -31, the tribulation has to be the whole thing.

Exactly right, and that's a discussion that I have with a lot of people when they try to refute Matthew 24, 29, 30, and 31, because they want to say it's two parts.

Two parts. Right, when it's really not, it's one big thing with a second part being way worse than the first part.

Oh, it's going to be worse, and we're going to be here. Oh, yeah. And when the zombie apocalypse happens, if I'm down at Phoenix, I'll drive back up.

Yeah. We'll just have to hang out. You can drive back up. And one day, honey, we're going to go, zombie apocalypse.

What? 14 hours. I could do it. My car, I could do it in like eight. Eight? Yeah, 14, because it's uphill, though, because it's going north.

Okay. All right, so when you have, what? Let's see.

I guess that's it. I don't see anything more coming in there. What? I couldn't hear you.

There's more. How about John 12, 32 coming after John 6, 44?

Well, it does. It's written like six chapters after. That was easy. They compared

John 6 with John 12, 32? John 12, 32 and 6, 44. Oh, John 6, 44.

You cannot come to me unless the Father draws you. And then Jesus says in Matthew, John 12, 32, he says, if I be lifted up from the earth,

I will draw all men to myself. Well, there's six chapters of difference in there. You cannot come to me unless the

Father draws you. Now, really, what he should do is go to John 6, 65, which says all of the, well, no, no, no.

We should do that. John 6, 38 through 40. All that the Father gives me will come to me. But I think

John 12, 32 is just talking about all kinds of men, all kinds of people, groups. Because in Matthew 15, 24,

Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He was not sent to everybody. He's only sent to Israel.

And so if he's lifted up from the earth, he'll draw all men, all of all the world.

But as far as election goes, the elect is a different group.

Okay. I'm going to read. I'm reloading this thing to see because the script, the text isn't updating.

Wow. Now look at all this stuff. Got that cold stuff going around.

Partial preterist. Okay. He's talking about 70 AD. 70 AD. We are not at the...

That's correct. No, that's a full preterism would say that everything happened in 70

AD. But Acts 1, 9 through 11 refutes full preterism because the angels say that that Jesus will return the same way.

You've seen him go up into the heavens, into the clouds. And I've seen what the full preterists do to that section of scripture.

And it's as bad as what the Mormons do to John. I mean, to Isaiah 43, 10, 44, 6, 44, 8, 45, 5.

It is. They shred it. The angels are specifically prophesying that Jesus will return a certain way.

And then they say, no, it returned in the armies in 70 AD. Wrong. It's just like, come on, you know, it's just so simple.

So anything else? Let's see. I'm on Facebook right now.

You know what? I don't know what's going on. I don't see anything updating. Mark of the beast.

Don't get the mark of the beast. That's my idea. Don't don't do it as bad. Now some people want to, you know, the mark of the beast is 666, right?

What day was man created on? Sixth day. Right. Now in Greek, for example, that's the word for fish.

And it's the only word I know the demetria of. So don't think I got all this down. This word, actually,

I do know a couple. The mathematical value is 1 ,224.

Each letter is also a number. So you add up the letters, which are also numbers in Greek, and you get 1 ,224.

And incidentally, in Greek, Isis Christos, Jesus Christ in Greek adds up to, interestingly enough, 888.

Not a big deal. But since I'm doing this, I might as well go further. In John 21, I think around verse 17, how many fish did they catch?

153 after the resurrection. Check this out. Not a big deal.

8 times 153 is 1 ,224. You can make something out of that if you like.

If not, that's okay. So the name of the Antichrist, when you add up his letters in Greek, will add up to 666.

I mean, 666. 666. 666 is the mark of the beast, not 666.

But there's a variant in some texts that lead us to this, 616.

So I don't know what the name could be, because you can have all kinds of letters and stuff. And, you know, that's it.

It's one of the theories that his name means that. The mark of the beast is 666. Why three sixes?

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Mockery of the Trinity. The devil, false prophet, the beast.

Some say they're all the same. Some say they're not. Excuse me.

Boy. Yeah, it's going around. It's going around. So do you think the mark of the beast has to be 666 on your body somewhere?

Some people think it's a barcode or... It could be. It could be.

Oh, come on. Get that back up in there. Yeah. Some say in the right hand or the forehead, because the

Bible talks about that. I forgot where. You must receive that mark in order to buy and sell, which makes sense.

And so if someone says to me, hey, you want to buy and sell? Oh, yeah, I've got cash.

No, you had to have a mark, a chip embedded in your right hand or your forehead. I'd be like, ah. Okay, I've got to go call up Nathan, because I've got to learn how to fish out of a stream now.

I'm a barter. You do barter? You're a good fisherman. I'm a good fisherman. You'll be okay there.

You need to learn how to hunt and barter. Yeah, I'm a good fisherman. You are a good fisherman. You'll be useful in an apocalypse.

Useful? Oh, that's good. In some apocalypse, I'll be useful. You'll be useful. Yeah, so this guy is the only guy who's ever born with a

Glock in his hand. Born with one. Come on, slap. What happened?

So he knows his stuff. So anyway. Do you know where the text is in that variance between 616 and 666?

No, I don't. Good question. I don't know where the variant is. I would just do a search on Google 616 or 666.

And it's just a variant there. You know me, I'm like a general practitioner. I just know a lot about a lot of things and kind of put it together.

And then there are people who are experts in their particular fields. I'm not like that. Except I'm good at being obstreperous, irritating, annoying, apparently.

That's what my wife says. And I said to her that I will perfect my spiritual gifting. But what about the idea that Nero Caesar adds up to 666 in Hebrew?

What? Nero Caesar in Hebrew adds up to 666. Yeah, yeah. Nero Caesar 666.

And it could be that there's different views about eschatology. One is that Nero was the one prophesied in Revelation.

If you're a partial preacher like me, they can be fulfilled then as well as later. And there seems to be some of that.

So people did flee to the hills when Nero was doing his stuff. They did flee.

So I don't have a problem with that either. You know, there's a lot of variables in here. We don't have all the answers.

But pre -ship rapture, sorry, doesn't work. First one is taken out of the wicked. That's what Jesus says. And we've got to realize that.

And I think the reason they are is because that's how bad the world is getting. So when did God take the people out of Noah's time?

When it was bad. When all their thoughts were evil and there were only a few people alive.

Then God cleaned house. As it was the days of Noah, so shall it be the days of the coming of the Son of Man. So this is called, in official parlance, we call this deprescatology.

Is that what we call it? Deprescatology? Yes. Yeah. And you can look that up and when you're done with that, read the slicktionary.

We have a slicktionary. How about the challenge? If in your view, the saints go into the tribulation, then what are we to be comforted with in reference to 1

Thessalonians 4 .18? Okay, let me check it out. 1

Thessalonians 4 .18. Okay. The comfort is that we who are alive and remain will be caught up together.

That's the comfort. The ones who are alive and remain and meet them in the clouds. That's to take comfort in that it's going to happen.

And people would often use this in pre -tribulation sense. How can it be comforting if you're going through the tribulation?

What? What's that got to do with anything? People go through the tribulations of all sorts. Right now.

Right now. People are being murdered for their faith. Take comfort in these words. Well, you know, people don't apply critical thinking to their own arguments.

We who are alive and remain at the time of Christ comes back. He's talking about the resurrection. It's going to happen. What he's saying is take comfort in the fact that we're going to be resurrected.

He's coming back. Take comfort in that. You go through everything you're going through. Take comfort in what's going to ultimately happen.

That's the point of the text. And I take comfort in that.

I mean, I'm 61 years old and I'm fading. And, you know, things aren't as easy as they have been.

Blah, blah, blah. I take comfort in the coming resurrection. And, you know, as I get older, on one hand,

I'm looking forward to dying. To go be with my Lord. On the other hand, I don't want to go through the process, you know.

But I take comfort in what Christ has done. And I just look forward and trust him.

That's all I can do. Get my water over here. Probably.

Well, probably not. In a sense, maybe the Gentiles have been interfered with.

But it was prophesied that all the nations will be blessed. In Genesis 12 .3,

which Paul quoted in Galatians 3 .8, calling it the gospel. And he says, in you all the nations shall be blessed.

So God has prophesied that even though Jesus had covenantally was only for Israel, the Gentiles would be grafted in because the

Jews would break the covenant with God. And we, the Gentiles, would be grafted in. So what he's talking about is what's called a counterfactual.

A possibility that's not actual reality. Would it happen in a different situation? Well, counterfactuals get into Mormonism and some other stuff.

We could just guess. It would seem to be that if the Jews had accepted the

Messiah. I don't know. This would be a good question to really look at theologically. Then they would have been redeemed.

They would have been a proper instrument of evangelism to the world preaching that Messiah. I think that's probably what would have happened.

And we still would need to be redeemed through the blood of Christ. Because no one can enter into heaven without him.

So I think that what happened is Israel would have done its proper job at that point. And since they didn't, then

Romans 2, the last two verses of Romans 2, talk about us being true

Israel. In the sense that we're the spiritual Israel. We're the ones who do what they're supposed to have done. So anyway,

I hope that helps something. Any more? Yes. Does Hebrews 1 .14 support the idea that Lucifer was used to, quote, minister to Adam and Eve in Eden?

Hebrews 1 .14 support the idea. They are not all ministering spirits. Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to render service for the sake of those who inherit salvation?

That's talking about the elect angels out of 1st Timothy 5 .21 who were there to minister to the saints.

No, Lucifer's not there to minister to the saints. Yeah. He's not a good guy. He's not helping us out.

1st John 5 .13. These things are written so you may know you have eternal life. If you want to know you have eternal life, go to 1st

John and start reading. And we know we have eternal life because we are, now even though the

Bible says, you know, 1st John 3 .8, we don't sin anymore and things like that. So what he's really saying is he doesn't practice sin.

He would say he doesn't sin. In the Greek, I illustrate it like this. In English, the present tense and what's called a verbal noun.

So like this, I eat. Okay. That's present tense. And this is,

I am eating. Okay. So there's a, it's a verbal, an ing is an ongoing action.

And we just have this, it's an ongoing action, but this is really an ongoing action. In Greek, the

Greek English, well, in our English, it's like we're here and here. In the

Greek present tense, it's kind of over a little bit in that it has a little bit of this kind of continuation aspect involved in the present.

And so when it says he does not do this anymore, it's in the present tense.

That's why a lot of translators say doesn't practice it. It's not practicing sin. And there's a difference between practicing sin and falling into sin.

Those who practice sin live in it and desire it and want it. There's no remorse, no conviction.

We don't do that. And that's what he's talking about there. Also, think about this. I'm gonna have some fun with this.

Let's just play a little bit. Let's just say, in 1

Corinthians 15, 22, it says, in Adam all died, in Christ, all shall be alive.

Now that's called federal headship. In Colossians chapter three, verses one through five, it talks about us having died, us.

In Romans six, six and eight, we were crucified with Christ.

We died with Christ. Now in Romans seven, one through four, particularly verse four, the one who's died is freed from the law.

Now in Romans 5, 13, if there is no law, sin cannot be imputed.

If there's no law, you can't have sin. If there's no law, you can't have sin.

But if you've died with Christ, you've died to the law. That means there's no law for the

Christian, which means in one sense, we can say we can't sin. Because we've died to the law, the law doesn't have any power over us.

We've died with Christ, he's our federal head. We've died with him, crucified with him, federal headship requirement.

And since we've died, we're no longer under the law. And without the law, there's no imputation of sin. So therefore, how can we sin?

Now this is not a play on words, but you see how you put this together.

The scriptures could be teaching that we're not sinning anymore because we're Christians. Even if we lie, we're not sinning because we've died to the law.

Yeah, we sin. 1 John 1 says, if we confess our sins, he's faithful just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Romans 7, 18 through 25, Paul does the thing he doesn't want to do. He struggles with his sin.

But what we're talking about here, I've realized this a while back. And I'm wondering if it is a kind of a way that God sees us and is a divine way that we don't sin anymore because all of our sins are taken care of and gone in that sense.

But do we really sin? Of course we do. And so I just see this. It reminds me of the way of looking at it.

It's kind of a poetic way. Man and wife get married. They're two virgins and they get married.

They have relations. Do they lose their virginity? Well, they go, yeah, but wait a minute.

What if they become one flesh? How does one flesh lose its virginity? It doesn't. And so it's a poetic way of looking at things.

There seems to be, in my opinion, certain hints of a poetic kind of a truth that are woven into truths.

And we can see how God is seeing us through Christ. And that's how

I kind of look at things sometimes. I don't know how much of a stretch that is, but I think there's some merit to it.

Anything else? Yes. Seth asked, I've been curious for a while.

Okay, Matthew what? 23. 23. 37 to be 39. 37.

Oh, he who kills the prophets. How long I've wanted to do this. Your house is being left to you desolate. The way

I'm going to do that, but you wouldn't come. That's no problem. Why is that a problem with Calvinists? Jesus is a man and God is...

How do we exegete that? How do we exegete it? What I would say is that he's saying

Jerusalem kills the prophets and that he had often wanted to gather their children together, but they didn't want that.

I don't have any problem with that. Even as a Calvinist, why would that be a problem? God can desire one thing and he can actually accomplish something else.

I'll show you this. Here we go. It's always good back to Calvinism, doesn't it?

I guess Paul must have been a Calvinist. I mean, if all these scriptures are Calvinist scriptures, right?

Yeah. Yeah, that's right. So there's a sense in which

God can arrange one thing and arrange something else. You know, he wants all people to be saved, but yet in Mark 4, 10 through 12,

Jesus speaks in parables so people will not be saved. He sends a deluding influence on people so they will believe the lies, like in Thessalonians 2.

So he desires all people to be saved in one sense, but he hardens them in another sense so they won't be saved.

So what we see in scripture is God's revelation of varying things happening. And what we're seeing here is

God can desire and arrange something differently. So he can desire that they come to him, but he doesn't arrange that they come to him in Matthew, was it 27?

Matthew 23, 37. He could desire it in one sense, but not arrange it in another. People might say to me, well, man, that doesn't make any sense.

You're just talking, you know, you're reading too much into it. Oh, really? Watch this. Who desires all men to be saved, 1

Timothy 2, 4. Yet, as I've already said, we go to Romans 11, 8, for example, just as it is written,

God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not, ears to hear not, down to this very day. So they wouldn't believe the truth.

Jesus says in Mark 4, 11 and 12, why do you speak in parables, blah, blah, blah, verse 12. In order that while seeing they may see and not perceive, and while hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they return and be forgiven.

So wait a minute, doesn't God want all people to be saved, 1 Timothy 2, 4? Yeah, then he speaks in parables so they won't be saved.

Is that a contradiction? No, it's not. What God desires. He desires, Luke 14, 23, compel them to come in that my house may be filled.

And then in 2 Thessalonians 2, 11, he sends a diluting influence on people so they will not come in.

He wants people, it says, he says in Hebrews 3, 7, therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as when they provoked me in the wilderness.

But yet in Exodus 4, 21, God says, but I will harden their heart so that they will not let the people go.

We see that. How about this? Deuteronomy 2, 30.

But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass to the land.

For the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made him obstinate in order to deliver him into your hand.

And let's see, how about Joshua 11, 20? For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts and meet

Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but they might be destroyed.

Then we can go to, people say, but he doesn't take any pleasure in the death of the wicked.

I have no pleasure. I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, declares the Lord. Ezekiel 18, 32.

I say to them, as I live, declares the Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 33, 11. And then

Deuteronomy 28, 63. The Lord will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you. 1

Samuel 2, 25. The Lord desired to put him to death. So what we see, there's lots more.

What we see is in one sense, God can want one thing. Another sense, he can arrange something contrary.

Now, can I do the same thing? Absolutely. I have children. I can want my children to be really nice and really good.

And I can want by arranging certain circumstances to give them the opportunity to be honest and people of integrity.

And I don't want to discipline them when they fail, but I will do it when they fail. So I can want one thing and do something to the contrary of what

I desire because it's necessary. And in the circumstances of what often would happen in the Old Testament, God would desire to destroy people in order to bring history to a certain point.

So when we go back to Matthew 23, 37, how often

I wanted to gather your children together. He has a desire, but he didn't accomplish it. He didn't do it. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate for I say to you, from now on, you will see me and not see me until I say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the

Lord. This is consistent with the Old Testament revelation of how God operates. Okay.

Anybody else next? I got something.

You got something? Yeah. What do you got? So I'm talking to some anti -Calvinists.

Oh, good. I quoted Romans 9 and that made them mad. So it starts off and basically they told me that the entire thing at no point talks of individuals.

The whole thing is representative of nations. And so I asked them who the nation of Pharaoh is. And they didn't know.

Um, but, uh, it says that would be the Egyptians, the cross -reference of, uh, the older shall serve the younger.

And then they kept asking me, okay. So when, when in scriptures did the older serve the younger,

I was like, I don't know, but I trust what Paul said. Can you give me, can you give me a source or do you disagree with Paul?

That what they say? Good for you.

Let's work with that. It's about nations.

Now there's a trick in Romans 9. So let's, let's read it with nations.

All right. For the word of promise at this time, I will come and Sarah shall have a son. Verse 10. Not only this, but there was

Rebecca also, when she conceived twins by one man, her 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 and said to her, the older will serve the younger.

Just as, just as it says, the nation of Jacob's and his descendants

I loved, but the nation of Asian, of the descendants of Esau I hated. There's no problem, right?

That makes sense. And then is there anything to complain about in that? No, no complaint.

Well, then why is verse 14 there? Well, what shall we say then? There's no injustice with God is there may never be.

Wait a minute. Why would that objection be there? If it's about nations? Yeah, it was a nation.

Well, what's the big deal? Because we have people making free will choices in nations. It's just a nation. And so there was no big deal, right?

What shall I say? There is no injustice with God. Let's read it the other way. The individual

Jacob, I love the individual Asian Esau, I hated. People go, that's what they do.

They're complaining. That's not right. It's not fair. Verse 14, what shall we say?

What they're doing is reinterpreting it to make it suit their theological presuppositions by saying it's a nation.

But then the objections fail. I asked them why they wouldn't have a person because an entire nation seems like more.

Hey, that's a good point. I'm going to use that one. Claim it for myself.

That's a good point. Well, you know, they would say, you know, it's the entire nation of the people following from Esau.

They have no problem with God hating an entire nation. But if it's just Esau, they have a problem. There's way more people.

Yeah, that's a good point. You don't want God to hate anyone because of your work. You know,

I mean, I think, I think in the Greek, it says like, love less is more of the meaning of hate.

No, no, it's a miso. I believe it is hate, hate, or something like that.

Yeah, hate. Yeah. Let me look. Well, wait a second.

Hate. Well, it's not, the word's not here. Yes, it is right there. Hated. The Greek word is miso.

Right. It means to hate. Okay. Now let's work with this.

Well, what should we say then? There's no injustice with God, is there? May never be. For he says to Moses, is Moses an individual? Yes. Yeah.

I will have mercy on whom? I have mercy. Is whom singular or plural in the Greek? Singular in the

Greek, isn't it? It's singular. All of it is singular here. I'll have mercy. That's singular in the Greek. On whom

I have mercy, I will have compassion. On whom I have compassion. So it does not depend on the man. Singular.

Singular. That a whole nation? No. Who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

The scripture says to Pharaoh, with this very purpose I raised you, singular in the

Greek, up to demonstrate my power in you, that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then he has mercy on whom?

Singular. He desires and he hardens whom? Singular. He desires. He will say to me then, why does he still find fault?

For who resists his will? On the contrary, who are you? Oh man, individual.

Who answers back to God, the thing. Molded. Not the group. Molded will say to the molder, why did you make me like this?

This is about individuals. Does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use?

Now the word vessel, whenever it's talking about people, when it says the vessel, it's always individuals.

I did a search on it, found out. So when they're doing this, what they are doing, when they want to make it nations, what they're doing is redefining

God after their own image and saying God must, he must give us our free will choice to be able to make a choice according to what we see as being just, how we want it.

That's why they'll say there's no injustice. They'll say the Calvinist view of this, which is just a biblical view is the unjust one.

It's the wrong one because God would never do that to individuals, but yes, he does. And I just read a whole bunch of stuff where he does.

So what they do is they're serving the blonde hair, blue -eyed Caucasian surfer Jesus, dressed in a woman's nightgown, standing at the door of your heart, asking for permission to come in because he's a gentleman and wouldn't let anybody, wouldn't hurt a fly.

And this is the kind of heresy that's being taught from too many pulpits in America today. You need to teach the fullness of the scriptures and all of this, and even the parts that they don't like.

It's not about nations, it's about individuals. And that's what's going on. They have to say that it's about nations because they don't like God being sovereign.

And then the one last thing they said to me is, cause it just started talking about the nation of Israel.

Right. And so I'm like, okay, that's fine. And then Paul goes into individuals, gives all these individuals and they're great.

I told them it's singular in some of these areas. And then they say, all right. So you think Paul was like schizophrenic with his ideas?

They said that Paul was schizophrenic. Yeah. Because then in verse 30 on, he starts talking about nations again.

He can't do that. He can't switch to individuals in the middle and then summarize with, I'm like, what are you talking about?

But how would you respond to, cause 30 he goes back to that Gentiles.

I would say, so does Romans one, is it talking about everybody?

Does it ever mention any individuals? Romans two, any individuals, Romans three? How about Romans 16?

When individuals are named, where's a dividing line in a topic where it becomes a plurality or singularity?

The point I'm trying to make is just because before and after it might talk about nations doesn't mean that it has to necessarily come into the issue of nations in there as well.

Because when it specifically says individuals, the vessel, Pharaoh, Moses, the man, the thing, these are all singular terms in reference to people, individuals.

And so if we were to let it be, let it say what it says in the text, instead of reading into the text and make it suit our theological preferences and desires, because we want

Jesus to be a certain way. If we don't do that, we just let it stay what it says, then we'll get the biblical position and not the watered down a position that they like.

That's all it is. And the older I get, the more I argue about this, the more

I encounter this, the more I'm convinced in my opinion that the

Christian church is adopting a series of false theologies because it's based on humanism.

And humanism is the, you see first see humanism in Genesis chapter three, when

Satan said to Eve, you know, you're not gonna die. And she looked at the tree and saw on her own,

I'll give you the slick version. She desired it, wanted it, it felt good. It's a humanistic principle to be able to decide for your truth what is the right, decide for yourself what is true, what is not true, what you shouldn't, shouldn't do.

And so what they're doing is they are deciding that this is how God has to be because, and if I had an anti -Calvinist sitting right here, which

I would love to have an anti -rabid Calvinist, you know, the kind that goes, okay, one of those kinds of people.

I'd love to have one of those in the room with me and just if they would actually have a conversation without calling me stupid names, but say, well, excuse me, why can't this be individuals?

Why can't it be? Because God doesn't do that. Can you show me that in the Bible where God does not do that with individuals?

Show me that. Show me where he doesn't raise up Pharaoh. Show me where he doesn't raise up individuals to specifically do specific things, where he specifically calls individuals.

He doesn't do that. Yes, he does. Let's go to, you know, Luke, excuse me, Acts 9, where Paul the apostle is going around killing people and God knocks him off his horse.

He says, you're mine. That's an individual. Well, he could do that with individuals to save them, but never to damn them.

And so what they do is they are so rabidly against the sovereignty of God that they will twist the scriptures to such a degree that they can't even see what they're doing to the word.

And then they turn around and attack you like a rabid dog does. When you say, this is what the word says, just like that guy on the radio today, when

I started quoting Colossians 2 .14 and applying, just applying thinking to it, or that's Calvinism.

That's what the Bible says. And there's ways to trick them too. You know,

I say to them, you know, I believe God makes things even, I even believe he makes wicked people for the day of destruction.

He would never do that. I just quoted Proverbs 16 .4. You know, I believe he hates people because, you know, he hates those who do bad things.

He would never do that. I just quoted Psalm 5 .5 and 11 .5.

You know, he does. Loves less.

You know, it's just like, I want to go teach a Bible study like this where all the antis come in and I wheel in a cart with a tarp over it.

Come in like that. What's that? Hold on, give me a chance. You know, we're gonna discuss theology.

I'll be breaking this out later. And what is it? It's mine. Don't touch it.

You know, and they're really curious. We get talking and Calvinism always comes up.

You know, Calvinism, Calvinism. And I go, excuse me. And then open up and get the pampers out in the bottles.

And I'm saying, we need to distribute these out here to you guys because make you feel better because you don't like what God wants you to do.

You don't like what God is, says he is. You want him made after your own image. It doesn't suit you. So you're diaperinians.

Here, let's go. That's what I feel like doing. How to win friends and influence people by Matt Sleck.

Yes. Whoa, she's, she got her hand up. Okay, sorry, you didn't see that. Make it good.

I'll try. So it sounds like you're saying that probably because they don't like the idea of everything.

Is it, is it possible that maybe it's something else or could be something else?

For example, is when we read the

Bible to endure difficult people, to endure suffering, to love those that don't love us.

That's that kind of character quality. So I think it could be possible that when people hear the

Calvinist view, it paints a picture of God in a way that they've been taught to be different.

I'm just saying, could that be, maybe that, that could be an area that might be difficult. Yeah. Not that, I don't think a lot of people have, which is just so contrary to what he has taught us to be.

So when you talk about it, it sounds like God's very random. He chooses people to go to hell, chooses people for the wickedness part, but we're not supposed to do that.

You know what I mean? We're supposed to love our children. Do you know what I mean? I don't know if that makes sense or not. So I would be tempted because there seems to be this defensiveness towards the non -Calvinist and just, it could be another area.

I mean, it's not about the sovereignty. I don't think it's about sovereignty.

Well, remember at the beginning, I said the rabid anti -Calvinist, specifically addressing those people.

Most people, when they don't agree with Calvinism, they don't understand stuff. You just, hey, this is what we teach us. You know, they go, well, what about that?

You just talk. The rabid, those kinds, that's what I was talking about. Okay, so you think the rabid ones are what you're getting at?

That's one of the issues. They don't want God's sovereignty. They want their own. Another issue is they judge everything by human free will, human standards, because in order for someone to be rightly judged by God, they have to make free choices.

And it's up to us in our free will to be able to choose. And so the exaltation of man's nature and ability is up there too.

And here's how it always works. God's sovereignty, man's sovereignty. Whenever you raise one, you have to reduce the other.

And that's what happens with them. We're talking about the rabid, just make it clear. The rabid anti -Calvinist, right.

Since I have your attention, can I ask you, so I read this magazine from my daughter's school, and Doug Wilson is in there.

Would you be concerned with him? Yeah. And he was a very good teacher for a long time, but he's getting into what's called the

New Pauline perspective, where you maintain your right place with God through keeping the boundaries of the covenant.

And it's too close to risking work's righteousness. Okay. What do you know about Jonathan Cahn?

Jonathan Cahn? Do you know who it is? I like him. Wasn't he in the second

Star Trek series thing? That's the wrath of Jonathan Cahn.

That's what it was. Two years ago, he was very into the

Harbinger book. So he said he stopped. And anyway, lately

I keep seeing him in Charisma News. I don't know if that's... I don't know who he is.

I can't comment. The Wrath of Cahn was a good movie though.

It was a good movie. Ricardo Montalbán. He was awesome. He made it.

And that was one of the best Star Trek episodes too. Yeah, it was. It was great.

Oh yeah. Good stuff. In fact, I read one of the biographies of William Shatner.

They talked about that. So between takes, the set crew had gotten a little machine with some alien, something, a little remote control.

It would send it in to Ricardo going, Duplee! Duplee! And things like that because he was on the...

And they would do jokes and stuff like that. It was really entertaining to read because you know all these scenes. You go,

I remember that. It's too stupid stuff. And he limped.

You know why he limped? He got in an accident with a horse or something like that. And... Hey, didn't he have a cane on Fantasy Island?

Yes, he did for a while. He got injured. Yeah. And when William Shatner's first,

I think one of his first appearances on the series, the very first, they only showed him from one side. And the reason was because they turned the lights on in this old warehouse where they're shooting and Hornets Nest came down and he got stung.

His face was swollen. And the reason, get this, I can't help it. The reason they switched from the original guy to Shatner was because the original guy's wife.

Oh yeah, I know. She would come into the set and say, no, film him from this side. Film him from this side. And she cost him the part.

She did. That's what he said. It's really worth reading.

There's all kinds of stupid stuff in there. But at any rate, even Shatner's confessions of how he blew it in some areas.

So anything else? Yeah. Okay, what? Andrew Womack has a teaching theory that, are you ready for it?

Okay. Ezekiel 28, 13 through 14 supports the idea that Lucifer was used by God to minister in Eden before the fall.

Yeah, you would then go to Cherub and Ezekiel also Matthew, or Isaiah 14 talks about the five eye wheels, but, or is it not

Ezekiel? The five eye wheels? No, Isaiah. And it talks in Ezekiel about his anointing and his formation, what he looked like.

So some think that he was the anointed cherub who was in the garden. So there's some theories about when the fall occurred. Some think that the fall occurred of angels before Adam and Eve were created.

Some people have said, they think it happened right about that time or when Satan came in and tempted

Eve was when the rebellion happened. I've heard different discussions on it. So, but it does say you were the anointed cherub at the top of the garden.

So there's some evidence for that. What's the right view? I don't know. I've never thought about that.

You know, it'd be fun to learn something new. They've been with me for a couple, three, four years. They haven't learned. They stopped learning anything new.

Oh, they learn something new every time. They learn how more humble I am each time. The Star Trek stuff is good.

I didn't learn anything new there. That was good stuff with Star Trek. I do have a personally addressed letter to me from George Takei.

I do, he wrote me. I don't care. I don't know of any books written on that topic.

So Hebrews are like stuff. It's starting to make a bigger footprint on our social theological landscape.

So I'm probably have to do some more research on that. It's quite varied. There's lots of different views on it. So it's a racist organization, just like the white supremacy group is racist.

Black Hebrew Israelites are racist. I've talked to some who say that because I'm white, I'm of the devil, will go to hell.

And others I've talked to, I remember talking over the years, you know, well, you know, you can be

Christian, go to heaven if you're white. You know, it's just the true people are black. And I don't believe that's true.

I don't believe the true people are white either. And these are kind of a mix in between the ancient Jews. I kind of lean that way, but who cares what the color?

I don't care. I think it proves that Jesus was black guy. I don't care. I care about his blood. That's all

I care about. And so what? So when people make it an issue of race, it's ridiculous.

You know, it's just, it gets so tired of this. It's just the enemy trying to, to, huh?

That's right. The blonde hair, black, Caucasian surfer, Jesus dressed in a woman's nightgown, dressed woman's nightgown at the door of your heart, heart asking permission.

And he's a less feminine complexion. He's kind of androgynous because that's a Jesus we like.

We don't want the Jesus that's going come here. That's what he's going to do when he comes back. He's going to come back with a sword out of his mouth.

He's going to judge people. He's going to be a lion. Come back as a lion. He was a lamb first, a lion later.

And it's going to be tough. Oh, not that loser. Oh, he does.

Yeah. He does. A lot of research on it. So you can go to striving for you. He does have stuff. Really? Yeah. Yeah. Andrew's a good guy.

strivingforeternity .com or org. Yeah. Striving for eternity. So Justin Peters, Justin Peters and Andrew Rappaport and I were on a desk on a panel together in New Jersey a few years ago.

And I think it was New Jersey. And so Justin Peters has stream of policy. He's up there.

He has Justin Peters ministry. He's great. So it was Justin Peters from Justin Peters ministry.

There was Andrew Rappaport from striving for eternity. And it was me from Karn. So I had to do this.

I did it. I said, look at this, folks. We have a narcissist, a synergist and a monergist and enough people got it.

You know, they go, oh, it's good. So I teased Andrew. I call him. Hey, how's your synergistic ministry going?

You know, striving for eternity. And he does.

He already is way ahead of me on buying my lunches. Jerk. Gosh. He, Andrew, wherever we get together.

He always smarts me about buying people's dinners and lunches. I'm serious. Yeah, he does.

And one time we're at Wendy's over here and I have my card out. I'm going to pay for it.

And he has his phone with a stupid pay app. And he goes, go ahead. You can pay.

And he goes like this across the thing. Go ahead and pay. He's just paid. And I'm like, what's wrong?

So he does stuff like this. So I totally, totally admit he gets me on it.

I call him a jerk for being nice and helping me out. Pay my meals. I call him jerk. So we have, it's kind of a running gag now where he goes, have you ever known anybody when you buy him dinner and he calls you a jerk?

Well, that's Matt. And so that's why I'm going to get him back somehow.

I don't know how I'm going to do it, but I'm going to figure something out. I don't know.

Each time I try. One time I got up 20 minutes before the check was to be delivered to the table.

Talked to the guy. Yeah, make sure the heck I overdoes and get it. I'm going to pay. He goes, he already did. I know

I was there. How did he do that? It was pretty funny.

Matt ends up, he disappears and comes back. He's like, you jerk. He's totally, he's killing me.

So now it's really becoming a thing where I got to pay, but I can't. He keeps outsmarting me on it.

Oh, well, that's fun. Makes my cheeks hurt. Okay. Seth wants to know, would it theologically be wrong with me, at the same time, men have a hundred percent free will while God.

Well, it all depends on what the definition of free will and sovereign are. You just said we as humans, we fallen humans just can't wrap our minds around that as a result, people either see

God as making people into robots or that God is on full control.

That's not the case. God is absolutely in control. The libertarians, there's libertarianism and compatibilism.

And I view libertarians as non -compatibilists. That's how I interpret libertarianism.

They're just non -compatibilists. A compatibilist is someone who teaches that man has free will. Well, what's free will?

The ability to make choices that are not coerced, the ability to make choices consistent with their nature and your nature and compatibilism is sinful.

So people can only make, unbelievers can only make sinful choices, choices consistent with their sinfulness.

That's it. They will never have their own free will in that state, choose God because they won't be coerced to, and they freely will choose to rebel.

That's called compatibilism. And the libertarians are anti -compatibilists and they say, no, that's not true.

They have the ability, even in their sinfulness, to be able to believe God. Well, that's against scripture.

The Bible says you can't come to me. This has been granted to you from the Father. John 6, 65, you know, the natural man does not receive the things of God, but they're foolishness to him.

1 Corinthians 2, 14. So I consider libertarians to be anti -compatibilists, even though they want their own category.

That's my final assessment on that. But God's sovereignty, he's certainly sovereign over our free will choices.

And our free will choices are simply that we're not coerced to do anything. I'm certainly afraid to do this or not do that.

God doesn't make me do it, but can he make me do it? Yeah, I can make Dave over here flinch by just throwing this at him and he would do something, right?

Because I can cause him to do something. I'm causing him to do it, but his free will isn't violated.

He's freely choosing to react a certain way. And so that's how God works. But he certainly has one possible explanation, even though the throwing of this is a decree of God by his permissive decree.

So it gets complicated. So the non -compatibilists have their work cut out for them.

And another thing is that they have this issue of a seate that they have to deal with, in my opinion, on the issue of God's sovereignty and God's nature.

God alone is the one who has a seate. He's the only one who is self -generating. His decisions, his choices are not influenced by anything external to him, period.

And from eternity. And people might say, well, yes, they are. He looked into the future to see what would happen. That kind of phrased and reacted to that.

That's heresy. It doesn't work that way. That would mean that God's choices are contingent upon foreseen choices of others, which, well, why would they be choices that would happen in a certain way that God wouldn't ordain anyway?

It doesn't make any sense. And so when we have a seate, we have God's independence and self -sufficiency in all areas and all things.

Well, what they're saying, the non -compatibilists are saying is that the human free will is able to self -generate in a manner independent of its circumstances.

That to me is a kind of idolatry because it borrows from the concept of God's seate, self -generation, self -sufficiency and non -external influence and pouring it over to human free will and saying somehow the human free will in the non -compatibilist view, the human free will is somehow self -sufficient in order to generate its own decisions.

There's a problem with that. Here we go. All right, an event, right?

And we have a cause. Now, does the event cause something to occur or does every event have a cause, right?

How would you look at this? Everything that occurs has a reason for it to occur. The event or the cause of the event, every event has a cause, okay?

So every event has a cause. Nothing can occur without a cause.

Simple logic, simple stuff. Let's take human free will. Let's just take the extreme version of free will.

Completely uncaused. So some view free will as uncaused but completely self -contained.

If it's uncaused, how does it happen? So there's something like this right here.

It's sitting, you can't see it, but it's right there. There's no cause. Does anything happen to it?

Nothing. It was uncaused. I pick it up. The reason it's here is because I'm causing it to be here.

So the event of this chalk being here because of my cause of picking up and moving it, if free will is completely uncaused, then it can't do anything.

So you can't have human free will be uncaused and independent of all things. So the causation has to be somewhere.

It could be either internal or external. Now, if it's internal, we have an internal cause, okay?

Then we admit it's caused. Free will choices are caused by something internal, okay? So what causes that?

The free will. What's internal causation? It causes free will to choice.

Well, it becomes circular, we get nowhere. And that's a problem for that position.

Now, if it's God who acts on the free will, then we have a cause.

The first cause is God, which is why we have the ability to make choices to begin with. So because God is ultimately our first cause, we have the ability to make free will choices.

Because ultimately, our free will choices are caused by one thing or another, which eventually comes back to the first cause of God.

Now, does that mean we don't have the ability to make choices freely? Of course not. We certainly have the ability to make free will choices, but we make free will choices consistent with our nature.

If our nature is redeemed, we can make free will choices that are consistent with redemption. If our natures are depraved, we're going to make free will choices consistent with our depravity.

But either way, it comes back to the initial cause of God, and then he causes the initial cause, which causes everything else.

Does God know all the result of every event? Yes. I can't get away from this.

So does God work freely with us? Yes, he does. That's compatibilism. And Jesus taught compatibilism, and I'll show you that next.

Yes, what? So this is going to be explained. What? It's so hard.

Yep. So... Why hard is hard? So in that situation, could it be that what

God did was the heart of harmony?

Not that God took his heart and said, pardon, it's that what he did caused it.

And God knew that would happen. Yeah. It reminds me of Layton Flowers. You'll know who that is.

All right. And Layton Flowers, in Philippians 129, God grants that you believe.

Not only has it been granted to you to suffer, but also to believe, or not only has it been granted for you to believe, but also to suffer.

And he says, no, God grants us circumstances for you to believe. And I said, well, that's not what the text says.

And the thing is, when it says God hardened a person's heart, I'm going to say then God hardened a person's heart.

That he actually did that, because it seems to be what it is. What we want to do is, as I get more confident in my theology, and I get older and more obstreperous and crotchety,

I say, that's what it says. And at first, I was like, how does that work? Because isn't

God nicer than that? And doesn't he want all that? And there are certain individuals he chooses to harden.

And he just does that. If we go to Acts 4, 27, 28, we see in there that God gathered

Pontius Pilate, Herod, the Jews and Gentiles to do whatever God's purpose and hand had predestined to occur.

Well, he had predestined them to do sinful things, yet he's not responsible for their sin. And that gets into be a real problem, not only for Calvinists, but for anybody.

How do you do that? How does that work? Nobody has an answer for that. But God does. And we know that he can predestine people to sin, bring them to that, but they're still unresponsible.

That's what the scriptures reveal. Yes. Yeah, it's called the communicable attributes.

Yeah. How is he sovereign over people when he loves them? Yeah, there's some toughies.

I read, you know, it just seems like a contradiction.

That's what's difficult. It's not. Yeah, it's more than that. Oh, good. Actually, that's a good place for you to be.

It's a good place for you to be seriously. And I'm not just being facetious. It's a good place to be when you're reading.

You go, that looks like a contradiction. Now, ultimately it can't be. So what it's a contradiction is, is in our minds because of the level of our understanding.

And so that means, ah, now I need to study more. And so like I read earlier, where God desires not, then he desires to destroy people.

Yet he wants people to be saved. Yet he prevents them from being saved. So we can see that God does both.

Well, one's in one context, one's in another context. And so what we do is we take them out of the context and say, a contradiction.

Not when you look in the context, you see things. Not always can we figure these things out. But that's the idea.

And it also could be, I think, might be that you think for men in general, very democratic, female

I would say more relational. Yeah. And I think because, I think the female side, we see this relational side of God and it just seems so unrelational.

It just seems very, um, just doesn't seem... You know, that part does because it's not very relational.

It seems like, um, it's so how it's presented.

I mean, it's the way that you talk. Sometimes you're like that. It just seems like very, um, that's just the way it is. Matter of fact, there's no, um, like sorrow or...

It feels cold. Yeah. Cold. Yes. In those topics. So in those topics.

Yeah. So it just, it's like, I think, you know, the greatest commandment of God, I don't see that.

Well, because we're not talking about that at that point. Yeah. I'm just talking about one aspect. We're talking about God's sovereignty and free will.

Now that's just a logic issue. You go back and forth. We've got to do that. If we talk about love and fulfillment and relationship.

Hey, you've heard me preach at church where I talked about eternal degrees. I can do that because it's true.

No, no, I'm not you. I don't understand. No, I'm saying God is portrayed that way, which seems very...

Sometimes. To this relational side. Well, this is... It's almost like the people are not humans.

They're just things. Right. This is, yeah, it's one of the criticisms limited against Calvinism.

But the reason it is, is because, uh, what they'll do is they'll attack that one aspect.

And so we defend that aspect. And then they say, oh, that represents all of Calvinism. No, it does not. And I tell people that's not the totality of Calvinism, the five points.

It is not. Read the Presbyterian divines. You can read some stuff from these guys. The relationship issue with God is incredibly deep.

There are Calvinists from the 16th, 1700s who would pray hours a day.

Hours a day. And there's even accounts when they would say, one guy, I forgot his name.

I'm going to go down to the garden and spend time with the Lord. The witnesses said there was a second person with them.

And people would hear voices and he was talking to somebody and these are reformed people.

So this stuff happens. Unfortunately, what's happening today is people are just, they attack

Calvinism. What they're attacking is sovereignty, free will, predestination, election. These are just these solid doctrines, but they don't listen to the issue of God.

As I, on the radio, you guys don't hear me on the radio here anymore. But, you know, in the past few weeks,

I've talked to people on the radio. And I'm a Calvinist. And I'll say, you just don't understand how much

God loves you. His love for you is eternal. His decision to save you is from forever ago.

The number of thoughts he's had of you can't even be counted. His commitment to you is found in the blood of Christ.

And it's so secure, you can never be lost. This is Calvinism. But I'll talk like that and people are comforted.

They're warmed. In fact, I don't know if you know who Lizzie was. You know Lizzie. You know who

Lizzie was. But Lizzie went to our church. Went to another church. She just passed away recently.

And Lizzie called me up on the radio show. I still remember that call. And she was a woman who was struggling with her sin and having a difficult time.

And I remember talking to her. My wife had to remind me. Oh, I remember that conversation. What I taught her was

Calvinism. I taught her that, yeah, you're a sinner. Because she's saying, how can

I be saved and still think these things and etc. I said, but your salvation doesn't depend on your goodness or your badness or your sincerity.

God's loved you. God will never forsake you, never leave you. His thoughts for you are infinite. His blood for you is infinite.

The power of the cross is infinite. You can never, never forfeit his love. He says he will never leave you or forsake you.

He's always there for you. That's a short version of what I said. And she said it just changed her because she understood now

Christ's commitment. See, that's Calvinism. But we don't get to talk about it that way because people represent it falsely.

God just hates people arbitrarily. That's not what we teach. You know, it's never arbitrary with God.

There are things we don't know. I don't know why. And so it sounds like that. So when I talk about these kind of issues, free will and event and cause, it's just an issue of logic.

It's just stuff like that. That's all that is. But trust me, Calvinism is very worn.

But people just don't know that it is. They don't know that it is. They don't know how humble I can actually be in my

Calvinism. A lot of mocking laughter coming from over there.

All right. So I know you get a kick out of the hate mail you receive.

Yeah. And this is from a raving anti -Calvinist. A rabid or raving? A little bit of both.

A rabid raving one. Not a huge fan. He was talking about you and, you know, he hates

Calvinism. And he said, Matt Slickster, all caps, said, Calvinism teaches man has free will.

But Matt Castle is a liar. God regenerating man irresistibly is not free will.

He doesn't even know what he's talking about. And so then people went on and stated your link on harm to what is free will.

Like he believes in free will. Oh, yeah, I remember that. Yeah. And then there's one on compatibilism. Somebody posted that.

And then there's another on compatibilism. Somebody posted. And then he said he does not believe in free will.

Slickster believes man has only freedom to do evil. He said so in the thread. So shut the fuck up.

Can you explain maybe the rule? Hold on a sec. Let me get a tarp out of the box.

It's something for this guy. Yeah. Can you explain maybe the rule between compatibilism and irresistible?

Irresistible grace. He has an immature, faulty understanding of reform theology that he's just demonstrating it.

Irresistible when God regenerates you. I forgot how he worded it. But irresistible grace does not mean we can't resist

God's grace. It means at the time of conversion, God regenerates you, and you can't resist that gracious regeneration.

That's what regeneration means. Irresistible grace. Now, okay, there we go.

So this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. And he needs to repent.

And he needs to call me up at the office and ask him what we really teach. Not what he wants to accuse us.

John 10 .10. Accuse us of. Now, regeneration. Okay, we have a person.

All right, we have a person. Unsaved. He's a sinner.

We have a Christian who is saved. What's the difference? For now, let's just say the

Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit's in the Christian, right? We have right here, little

HS right there. Holy Spirit is in the Christian. He's saved, okay? This is, that means

Christ, he's Christian, okay? Now, regeneration. Okay, put it this way.

This person has free will. This person has free will. I tell people routinely on Facebook, Calvinists don't deny free will.

We do not deny free will. Listen to me. We don't deny free will. Now, they'll say, you're lying.

No, I'm not lying. First of all, what is free will? Free will is the ability to make choices that are not coerced, right?

They're free, right? That's free will. Now, oh, there we go.

Chuck fart. So here we go. Does the unbeliever have free will?

Can he make choices? Yes. Does he make choices that are consistent with what he is?

Okay, yeah. Does the Christian have free will? Yeah.

Does he make choices? Yeah. Are they also uncoerced? Yeah. Now, so how does an unsaved person become a saved person?

By regeneration, all right? What's regeneration? The changing of the person.

John 3, 3 through 8, 2 Corinthians 5, 17. There's a change in the person.

Now, so if I were to throw water on you, right?

And engulf you with water. Now you've been engulfed with water. Have I violated your free will?

No, no. And now because it's cold, you walk over to a towel, right?

Make you do the towel. Did I violate your free will by throwing water on you?

No, okay. So when God changes us, he's not violating our wills.

He's just changing us. So now that we're saved, the

Holy Spirit's in us. Now our nature is a little bit altered. And we'll leave that alone for now.

A little bit altered in that now we're regenerated, okay? Now, now we freely choose to believe in God.

He freely chooses not to believe in God. Calvinists don't deny free will.

We believe in free will. We believe in biblical free will. They don't believe in biblical free will.

They believe in autonomous, self -centered, narcissistic, uncaused, libertarian free will.

They're the ones teaching heresy. And what they'll do is they will redefine free will in such a way to mean that the unbeliever is freely able to choose things against his sinful nature.

When the Bible says in, let's see, Jeremiah 17, 9, that the harsh, desperately wicked, deceitful, no man can trust it.

Or Romans 3, 10, 11, and 12, that he does not seek for God can do no good. Or Romans 6, 14 through 20, which says he's a slave of sin.

Or 1 Corinthians 2, 14, which says, okay, which says he did, that's all right.

You're not, you're, you're repeating them. That's pretty good. He says the natural man cannot receive or understand the things of God for their foolishness to him.

Ephesians 2, 1, he's by, he's dead in his trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2, 3, he's by nature, a child of wrath.

So how does someone like this, this is what the question I'd ask the guy, if he's sitting right here.

Oh, wait a minute. How is it possible for the, when the Bible says that he is a hater of God who does no good, doesn't seek for God, is a slave of sin, unrighteous, cannot receive spiritual things.

How does he simply choose God? And what they'll say is he just does. You okay?

You all right, man? All right.

You need to call an ambulance or anything? All right. Okay. For those that aren't on camera,

Jeremy just came in. Looks like you walked up too much of the cold. Okay.

We'll talk later. Thank you. All right. All right. So this is the problem that the anti -Calvinists, they don't want to be taught.

They don't want us to say, no, it's what we teach. Now, last year or so, when

I was on the radio here two years ago, whatever it was, they have a local guy who's teaching against Calvinism. And so I did

Tulip Week. It's on Karm Videos, Tulip Week. I did five points in five days.

And so I actually talked to the guy. And I said to him,

I said, why don't you and me come get on the radio together? Let's check things out. Let's go have a discussion. He didn't want to do that.

Why would he not want to come on the radio with me on my hour long show and freely talk and dialogue?

Why? Because he didn't want, in my opinion, did not want to really have a serious dialogue of what was going on.

And we got talking and he said, I said, what do you have against reformed theology? And he brought up irresistible grace.

And he said, look, irresistible grace is wrong. I said, why is it wrong? Because people can resist the grace of God.

And I said, that's not what irresistible grace is. He said, what?

I said, of course we Calvinists teach that God, that Christians can resist the grace of God and unbelievers can resist his grace.

Of course we teach that. He says, you do? He says, yeah.

Irresistible grace is that when God regenerates you, you can't successfully resist that gracious movement.

That's what irresistible grace means. He said, really? I said, here you are out there on the radio teaching stuff that you don't even know what we teach.

That's very representative of what happens with the anti -Calvinists, they're rabid. They're rabid and they need a

Calvinist shot to cure the rabies. They need the sovereignty of God shot to cure them up.

They need that. And it's ridiculous. What?

And so, I've offered on these Facebook pages. One time, was it three months ago?

I offered in a rabid anti -Calvinist Facebook page. Someone gave me access, whatever it was.

I'm reading through this stuff. I'm like, that's not what we teach. You guys are totally blowing this out of proportion. So I'm dialoguing.

And I said, would anybody be interested in just having a polite discussion sometime on a video in the evening?

And I'll just answer questions and teach you what we really teach. I was so viciously attacked that they tied with the

Universalists. Now, that's a historical thing. And to be accurate, historical thing with me.

And I used to say that the only ones who treated me worse than the Universalists were the Satanists.

That's what I would say. The only ones who treated me worse than Universalists were those who serve

Satan and were self -pronounced Satanists. And we had to get the FBI involved. Now, this group matched the

Universalists. These are the rabid anti -Calvinists. This is what I deal with sometimes.

And so all I was offered, why don't we have just a nice discussion? I'll just answer questions. And I ended up just getting out.

And then I started getting notes. Oh, Matt Snicket is handed to him.

He couldn't handle it. They were ungodly. They were just so full of vitriol.

And that's what's going on. Where are they coming from? They hate God's sovereignty. They want their own.

That's the rabid anti -Calvinists. Those are the ones I encounter a great deal. Jesse Morrell's group in Montana was pretty bad too.

Oh, yeah. In fact, when I went up to debate Jesse Morrell, a full Pelagian, and I didn't know how bad the group was until the

Q &A. And I realized that this audience was full of his supporters.

And this also, I can say this honestly, of all the debates I've been in, public debates, moderated public debates, where atheists have been present,

Christians have been present, different groups, without a doubt, that group was the rudest, most impolite, condemning group of all of the audiences.

Absolutely. Yeah. You weren't there. No, but I watched it.

That's right. You watched it. And you're supposed to be Christians? You're supposed to be Christians. Yeah, well, I didn't sound very Christian, but I can tell you.

Oh, yeah. And so when people hate the sovereignty of God, they replace it with their own.

And what they justify it with is free will. They want their own free will to be right and sovereign.

That's what they want. It's an elevation of man. So God's demoted and man's exalted.

And this happens in churches all over the place. Humanism is creeping into the church. I want to write a booklet on this, not a big novel or whatever, but the idea of this creeping into the church.

And I'm the only one who's said this. Others are realizing it too. Humanism is man -centeredness.

Human free will, human free will, human free will, human free will, human free will. What I'll do with them, with these rabid anti -Calvinists,

I'll say, I trick them. I'll tell them, all right, now I do this. And they'll still watch a video like this, and they'll still fall into it.

And I'll say, well, does God want everyone to be saved? Yes, unlike you slimy

Calvinists. Okay. You and your false God Calvinists, the devil.

Okay. Okay. So would Jesus ever speak in a way so people will not be saved? Of course not.

And so I'll read a Mark 4, 10 through 12, where Jesus speaks in parables so they won't get saved.

See now, wait a minute. You understand us better than we do, our Calvinists, and we're updated, and you have the truth, and you say certain things about God, yet you can't even figure this one out right here.

What is going on here? Right? Why does he speak in parables? So they won't be saved. That's what it says.

Lest they return to be forgiven. That's what he says. Yeah. That's right. Well, you're taking out of the context.

I just read it. Happens a lot like that. And then you know what's interesting?

They don't care. They refuse to bow to the word of God. Even though it says that, they refuse.

What I'll often do, because I got so many scriptures memorized, is I will weave those scriptures into conversations. They don't know

I'm quoting scripture, and they'll disagree. And then I'll go back later and say, I quote it here, and you said this,

I quote it here, and you said that, I quote it here, and you said that. You're tricking me. Yep. You call that Christian?

Yeah. Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I'm slick. Victory dance.

Actually, my victory dance at home is more like this. There you go. That's the victory dance.

When I solve a computer problem, my wife hates asking me to solve a computer problem, because she always has to see the victory dance.

No, you got to see it. When did you paint your back for me? That's right. That was pretty good.

That's right. It wasn't as good as mine, but you got to need more practice, because people don't correct me very often. Oh, so humble.

Oh, yeah. I'm full of it. Okay, more questions, comments?

There's a couple of small ones. In Romans 3 .22, he asks, should it be worded in the

God or of God? In that first line, the KJV says of God, and the

NAVV says in God. Faith in Christ Jesus or faith of Christ Jesus? No, the first line.

Even the righteousness of God. Oh, of God. Let me look. Let's see if I can figure it out.

By looking, I may not be able to. And the Greek word is theou of God.

It's a genitive. So it shows possession. It's theou. It's of God.

That's what it is. And what's the fishbowl analogy?

Fishbowl analogy? Oh, haven't used that in a while. Okay, fishbowl analogy.

So you have a fishbowl, and there's a fish in it. The fish is free to swim anywhere in the bowl, right?

Yes. So God can take the bowl, put it where he wants it, right? Is the fish been violated in his free will?

No. So I can take a fish. That's free will. You know, not really, but whatever.

Fishbowl, fish, right? And I can move that fishbowl to Montana. I can take it to Barbados, which would be nice.

I can take it to Hawaii. I can take it to my bathroom and say, look at the toilet. And I can do anything

I want. And the free will is still there. Can God move us where he wants us to go? Yes, he can.

Can God violate our free will? I believe he can. He can make us do things.

I believe he can. He can arrange it so we do it. Predestine it. He can cause it. Things like that.

I believe that that can happen. To what degree? I don't know. That's the key. To what degree?

God moves the heart of the king where he wishes it to go. Proverbs 21 .1. And I've said it to people too.

I believe God can move the heart of people where he wants it to go. No, he would never do that. I just quoted Proverbs 21 .1,

right? I remember once I was talking to a guy who does not believe in... He was a positive confessionist.

He believed that God wants everyone to be healthy and wealthy. Never be sick. And I said, really?

Yeah. This is an example of this kind of thing. The rabid anti -Calvinist and this kind of attitude is the same.

So I remember sitting, it was in Escondido, California back in the whatever. And so we're in his apartment.

And so I said, hey, you know, I said, I believe that God can make people blind.

He would never do that. So I went to Exodus 4 .11, which says,

God says to Moses, who makes the eye blind? The ear deaf, the tongue dumb. Is it not I, the

Lord? And I remember him reading the text and he read it. And he read it for about a full minute.

I didn't say anything, didn't do anything, just waited. And he looked at me and he finally said, well, I don't know what it means, but it doesn't mean what it says.

This is what happens when people have an agenda and they impose the agenda over the word of God. And that can happen with anti -Calvinism.

I don't care if you're a Calvinist or not, I don't care. Just, if you can not agree with Calvinism, at least represent it fairly as this anti -rabid idiocy that goes on.

You know, it's just ridiculous. And people like that, they cause division in the body of Christ. Titus 3, 10, 11, 12, 10, 11 talks about that.

Reject, warn them after second warning or third warning, then reject such a person because they're being factious, causing division.

And so, causing dissension. One last one. That's it, we're done. All right, okay.

We are done. Hope you had a good time. Hope it was fun, entertaining, you learned stuff.

Uh -oh, one more. This is not Bible related. Not Bible related? Could we close out first and then go? No, so when you go and get your hair cut at the barber.

I don't, I cut my own hair. You cut your own hair? Yeah. That explains a lot.

Have you ever gone to the barber? Oh, yeah. Do they see you? There's no helping you? Yeah.

That's because I cut my hair myself. That's his hairstyle. Also. I have to look.

Oh, you can't. But I have a CPAP machine. And so, the strap goes over the top of the head.

So, it causes it to sit down like that. Well, let me close out and then we'll do that. I can't believe we're getting this.

All right, everybody. We'll see you. God bless. Bye. Hope you enjoyed it. And she's gonna look at my hair now. Okay, we'll see you.