FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE***Q&A with YOURCALVINIST

Live from the Theo shed in beautiful Callahan, Florida. It's Friday night

Your Calvinist podcast is filmed before a live studio audience and welcome to your

Calvinist podcast Friday night live and I am Keith Foskey and with me is my wife

Jennifer and together We are your Calvinist's good to see everyone tonight

Already people jumping in on the comments and we have a ton of questions to get through tonight

Several coming in by email a bunch coming in through the YouTube comments and carry carrier pigeons

We've had a lot of people send in questions if we're gonna get to them all we're gonna have to go and get to them

Quick, but before we start the questions I just want to remind you of a few things that are very important for the show number one

Don't forget that we are Ministry of Sovereign Grace Family Church, so if you're in the

Jacksonville area Jacksonville, Florida We would invite you to come and visit us at Sovereign Grace Family Church sgfcjax .org

and if you're interested in Taking classes with us. We offer classes through Sovereign Grace Academy.

It is a free Academy we call it a seminary like experience.

It's not seminary We don't provide degrees or anything like that but we do provide certificates if you take classes with us our classes are eight weeks long and after you do two years worth of classes with us, you can earn a basic or a diploma of basic ministry training and The classes are very similar to the ones

I took in seminary And so if you're interested in taking those classes go to Sovereign Grace Academy org you can register there and learn about the classes currently

I'm teaching a course on early church history from the fall of Jerusalem to the rise of Augustine so that is

Something to mention to you and hopefully you would be interested in that and if you have questions about it You can always send them in to me and questions for this show go to KeithFoskey .com

and if you want to learn more about Our ministry if you want to find any of our materials if you want to buy our cool hats or cool shirts

You can get them at KeithFoskey .com Jennifer how you doing tonight?

I want to just mention that you are there. I just keep talking and So I want to tell you guys how encouraged we have been

You guys have been sending in messages saying that you enjoy seeing us together And we enjoy being together.

This is one of the things I actually have been looking forward to I get to sit close to the lady that I love and And and just hold her hand and talk to you guys about theology.

So what better what better way to spend a Friday night? So thank you for the encouragement for that and keeps her coming.

So I'm glad yeah Yeah So before we get to the questions one last thing

I want to remind everybody of and that is this We are trying to hit 30 ,000 subscribers by Thanksgiving.

We've only got a few hundred left So here is my request to you. I'm gonna ask you if you have not hit that subscribe button please go down and hit it and if you know somebody who you think might benefit from the show might benefit from the

Humor might benefit from the podcast or from the sermon clips that I post anything that you think might benefit someone send them the channel, let them know what we're doing and Hopefully they'll subscribe.

In fact encourage them to subscribe. We're really trying to get to that 30 ,000 mark I've set a goal for myself and And that's the goal that we're trying to hit and I didn't promise anything

I'm not gonna shave my beard or anything like that. I did say we'd shave my back, but nobody gets to see that but If you haven't subscribed, please go ahead and do so.

This is also a show that is sponsored We have several people that are bringing the show to you tonight.

One is tiny Bibles. You can see them right here this is the smallest printed Bible on the market and You can get this from tinybibles .com

and if you use my name Keith in the coupon code you get a good percentage off They also have the tiny gospel of John.

They're also sending me a New edition of a new work that they've got going on I can't give the information about it yet because I don't have it

I'm looking forward to sharing that with you guys next week. So it might be a good Christmas gift So be on the lookout for that in just a moment.

I'm going to tell you about our other sponsors, which is private family banking and Striving for eternity who is giving us a percentage off of their book, which is what we well, what do we believe?

But we'll talk about that in just a minute I want to get to the questions because I know people didn't come in People got here to listen to the questions.

So let's let's get to the very first one Jennifer hit me with a question All right. I've been watching your services and I'm enjoy and I am enjoying them

One thing I've noticed is that people don't typically raise their hands during worship. I'm not at all trying to be critical here

I'm just trying to understand is the raising of the hands something that the Reformed churches typically refrain from or is it something that varies from congregation to congregation or Perhaps a violation of the regular

Regulative principle I've seen it in some southern and free will Baptist churches

But I don't recall seeing it in a Reformed Baptist or a Presbyterian one. I'd also like to add hand clapping as well

Thanks in advance This is a terrific question and the person who asked this question actually

Watches our service online and that's a good thing to mention is our services are streamed live

Sovereign Grace Family Church now, I would never encourage you to miss your worship service but if you happen to be in a situation where you can't attend worship on a

Sunday morning and You want to watch a service live? You can watch our service live at 1030.

Just go to our YouTube page It's SG FC Jack's jax, which is Sovereign Grace Family Church of Jacksonville you can watch our worship service including our music our time of prayer and our

Participation in hearing the word preached and it's that way every Sunday and our

Sunday school class is streamed live as well Brother Mike is currently teaching through the book of Revelation So if you're interested in that and even if you can't watch live, which hopefully you'll be in your own church

You can go and watch it later because once it's live it once the live show ends

It becomes a recording that you can go back and watch. So here is the Here is the answer to the question about hand raising it it does vary from Congregation to congregation.

It's it's I Know that there are those in the reform community that would say reform people don't raise their hands

But then again you have to define what's what's reformed and and then you know, how broad are you gonna go with that?

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with raising your hands in worship

Even though I have seen recently people who have been writing against it or saying it's wrong saying it's a it's it's a an inappropriate expression of worship

I don't have the name of the person who wrote that article, but I read an article recently where the person arguing against The raising of hands, but I do find it interesting

If you've been watching our service that you haven't seen people raise their hand It might just be the position of the camera but there are people who raise their hands in our worship service our service tends to be a blend of more contemporary songs as well as hymns and psalms and Because of that mixture we do have a variety of worship styles that we do as far as music and things like that So there are people who raise their hand

We don't clap as much but it's not because of a lack of desire It's because it's not a normal part of what we do.

And therefore when we do clap, it's very awkward It's very it's like You know

It's and I'm and I'm talking about for myself too and I play the guitar But when it comes to clapping whether you should clap on the one and the three or the two and the four

I don't know. So you're not gonna see us clap a lot, even though we like I like the idea

I think clapping can be good But this is one of those things that's going to vary from church to church

But if you haven't seen it done in our church, it is certainly something that we do I enjoy raising my hands when

I worship In fact, one of the things I was talking about recently Or actually reading about recently as I'm going to be talking about it in my early church history class is that in the early church

The posture for prayer was typically standing with your hands open and so this is not something that's new or unique or necessarily brought about through Pentecostalism or Charismaticism or anything like that.

This has been around for a long time and If you ever saw Dr. R .C. Sproul at his church give the benediction typically when he gave the benediction because I've been in his worship a few times

He would raise his hand as he is proclaiming the benediction. So the raising of hands in worship is

Biblical it's not it's not wrong Certainly, there are some churches where if you did raise your hands

You'd be the odd man out might feel kind of awkward and that might lead to you to not do it But I certainly don't think

I certainly don't think that it's that there's anything wrong with it And and you know, it's interesting you mentioned the frozen chosen

Oftentimes that moniker does get attached to Calvinists because there tends to be a very

Staunch and Still Expression of worship sometimes very it looks very joyless, which is not good

But I don't think somebody not raising their hand is a bad thing It just depends on the person depends on the situation depends on what they believe

Is the purpose for raising their hands? I don't think I don't I don't think we're putting up our antennas to get closer to God or something like that I think it's simply an expression of worship and and the meaning behind it can be can be different.

I Do love this that watch. Well Parker trying to throw out some trying to throw out some ugliness out there saying you play the guitar with that that rhythm.

Yeah Yeah Parker listen you fetus. I'll come and get you. Yeah, I called

I Call them a fetus I Time for commercial break.

No, no he He made a joke about something I said and and see he's laughing see he gets he gets it

He gets it. He knows. I love him. All right. Okay All right, so yeah, that's wrestling banter, that's right.

Okay. So yes, we do raise hands in our church. Yes It does differ from church to church Somebody posted on the comments.

It's a little higher than I can see now But somebody mentioned that they raise their hand a lot in the CREC Yeah, that's true.

I've visited their conferences and a lot of people raise their hands, especially during the doxology I always raise my hand during the doxology if that's

Something that kind of just gives you an idea of what worship is like at our church All right, let's let's move to the next question that was a great one, okay for a few years

It has been my strong desire to pursue a godly woman for marriage and raise and lead a family in the discipline

Love honor and glory of our Lord, but the timing has not yet been right partly because I'm currently in college

There are many ways a man and woman can meet start a relationship betrothed and wed the culture pulls toward the way of recreational dating

Christian tradition pulls towards the general system of courting between the two them

Between the two is a maze seemingly unnavigable. My question is this What are your thoughts on the various ways a man and woman can meet grow and pursue marriage together?

Also, do you see one way is more God glorifying than others? Why this is a great question and props for using the word unnavigable as we were putting

As we were working on these questions earlier to get prepared for tonight

Jennifer was reading through it and she got unnavigable and we had Unnavigable so anyway, okay

It's It's interesting that in this question He says, you know Christian tradition pulls towards the general system of courting.

Well, the pit that depends. I think there is I Think that a

Something can be said for the for the process of courting but courting doesn't always look the same courting does have a tradition that is

Is varied as to what courting means? You know the way biblical marriage or marriage in Bible times was done is quite different than today

There's a lot more Ability to choose and make choice than there was during the time of Scripture When marriages were arranged and things like that and somebody in comments said arranged marriages for the win.

Yeah, um, I Don't know Yeah, yeah, but I'm but but I'm not down with for that with us

Yeah, and that's the thing right I When I was reading this question and I was thinking about this question.

I got to thinking about my relationship with Jennifer We were not believers when we met

Even though I grew up in church I didn't get saved until after we got married and she got saved slightly before I did so we both got saved around the

Same time and it was around this it was around the same year that we got married We didn't meet each other in a

Christian way we met each other by the providence of God because our fathers worked together and so The the way that you meet someone

Is is somewhat somewhat difficult to answer because you're asking the question.

What's the best way to meet someone? What's the best way to start a relationship? What's the best way to make the relationship, right?

And I don't always I can't give you a good answer as to how to meet someone other than this if we are looking for someone who is a godly person who is a a person who is a

Christian which is if you are a Christian you should be looking for someone who is a Christian Then you the the church would be one place to look but it might not be the church that you're in Because a certain small church may not give you the opportunities to meet people and and things like that You may not have that opportunity.

So You may have to reach out beyond your own church if you're looking for some if you're looking for someone to marry

The there are all kinds of ways to meet people I again, I I don't want to I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of all the different ways you can but but Let me tell you what

I do think is important when you do when you do meet someone when you do meet someone Did you want to put something up there?

Go ahead Yep, God is sovereign over dating and marriage. Yes. He is. Absolutely Troy.

That's that's correct But let me say this when it comes to the subject of Dating and and courting

This whole conversation I think has been influenced somewhat through the the last 20 -30 years where We know the dating culture which is basically in many ways like divorce practice, right?

You go out with somebody you you invest a lot of emotional ties into them without ever thinking about marriage

And then you break up with them and then you do it again and then you do it again Then you do it again and you've and you've given yourself emotionally to several people and perhaps if it's there's been sinful activity

You've given yourself much more to someone in those things So I do think if you're looking for someone to be married that should be the mindset to how you're looking and so if you're if you're engaging with people that you know, you're not interested in marrying

I Don't think recreational dating for the purpose of just having somebody to hang out with is safe Because you're opening yourself up to the potential for sexual sin

You're opening yourself up to the potential of giving your heart to a person who you're not really going to give your heart to in marriage, so you need to be thinking about Long -term marriage and that's why

I'm I really don't think Very young people dating is a good idea when I say young 12 13 14, that's

Because they're not looking towards marriage at that age. However, 17 18 year old. That's fine We met when we were 17.

We got married when we were 19, and I am all for young marriage Get married young have children young grow up together raise your children together

Become adults together in that sense. I think all that is good So Somebody mentioned about Dominion dating

I don't know who that is, but I'd be more than welcome what more than willing to talk to somebody about this Especially if they know seem to probably know a lot more than I do

Especially if they're talking about Dominion dating, but I do want to say this because Jennifer and I talked about this earlier whoever it is that you

Look to for your bride. You need to ensure one thing You need to ensure that this is someone that you like.

I Know a lot of people who are looking for a

List of things is is this a Christian? Is this a person? That's going to be a good father? Or is this person that's going to be a good mother.

Is this a person that's going to be this? this person is going to be that and and way down on the list is

Is this a person I actually enjoy being with? But I'll tell you what if this is not someone you enjoy being with if it's not someone you actually like That is

It's going to be very hard to enjoy that marriage, to enjoy being together.

Jennifer and I like each other, genuinely like each other, and we have since the moment we met.

When I met her, and this is something I explained to a young man at my church. I said, when I met Jennifer, the day that I met her, she made me feel like somebody, like no one had ever made me feel before, and I'm not trying to, you know,

I'm not saying, I've said this before. I've said this hundreds of times. There was something about her that made me know, this is a person

I want to spend time with. This is a person I want to get to know better. And through the process of getting to know better,

I only wanted to get her to get to know better, and I only wanted to get to know better, and I only wanted to continue to grow in that relationship.

People talk about falling in love. Yeah. Okay. But here's the reality.

Do you like this person? Is this because the love part, the ooey, gooey, squishy butterflies, that is temporary, but do you see yourself with this person, enjoying this person, growing old with this person?

That's the importance. That's the thing. Obviously, should they be a believer?

Absolutely. Should this person be godly, somebody that you can grow with, someone that's going to be a mother, father, those things.

But do you like this person? There was a movie with, um, Jimmy Stewart and,

Hey, we're getting close to Christmas and Jimmy Stewart is the, uh, it's a wonderful life if you remember that movie, well, there's another movie.

And I don't remember the name of the movie, but a guy came to ask for his daughter's hand in marriage.

And he said, do you love her? And I can't do a Jimmy Stewart impression, but it was like, do you love her?

And, and, and the guy says, well, yeah, I love her. And he goes, but do you like her? Do you like her?

And I, and I always thought that was a great question. Um, because if you, if you, he said, if you don't like her, those nights can grow cold and contemptuous.

And, um, the best thing about our marriage is that there's nobody in the world

I'd rather spend time with. I don't have a group of buddies that I'd rather go off with. I don't have hobbies that I would rather go do.

If I'm going to do something, I'd rather she be sitting right next to me. And, um, that's a huge part of it.

So I can't tell you how to find that person, but I'm going to tell you when you find the person that you enjoy spending time with more than anyone else and they love

Jesus, that's a key. That's a big key. So hope that's helpful.

All right. Before we go to the next one, I want to do a quick ad read. Uh, as I said, we have sponsors now and we want to be, uh, good to our sponsors.

And so I'm going to talk to you about private family banking. Are you desiring to change your financial trajectory and build multi -generational wealth for your children and grandchildren?

Private family banking invites you to join a growing number of like -minded individuals, families, and entrepreneurs working together to form a unique part of the parallel economy.

With private family banking, you will learn how to establish and privatize banking system that will increase the value of your money and savings, including unique ways to leverage your 401k, 403b and IRA accounts.

Now you can get ahold of them at banking at privatefamilybanking .com. You can just send them an email and you can download their free ebook, which is in the description of this video.

So check out private family banking. You know, we, I want to say this, Jennifer and I have recently been talking about the fact that, you know, we're, we're,

I'm middle aged. She's still, she's still 20. She's still, you know, she's, she's, well, yeah, yeah.

She celebrated her 29th birthday again. But I'm, I'm, I'm 44 now. And, you know, we're really considering things like the, the fact that we, we want to leave our children in inheritance.

We want to, we want to be able to do that. But to do that, we have to consider our own, our own habits of saving and how we're going to do that.

So private family banking is one of those places that can help you do that. Well, all right. So so that's, that's my thought for private family banking.

Jennifer, give me question number three. All right. Question number three. I enjoyed your last video on Steve Lawson, and I had a related question about the late apologist,

Ravi Zacharias, who, as you probably know, had some very nasty reports come out after his death.

I disagreed with some of his theology, but certainly his books seem to have some good stuff. How do you feel about his ministry and works now after his passing?

I actually did a video on Ravi back when the information came out after his death.

And I talked about this very thing. And, and so I can try to find the link to that video.

It wasn't a long one. It was, it was back when the podcast had, you know, four viewers and one of them was my mom.

So it's been, it's been a long time. But, but the reality is the same thing

I said with Steve Lawson is true of Ravi Zacharias, some of what they said, much of what they said is true.

Much of what they said was useful to people. And that's why they gained the popularity that they gained. However, at this point,

I can no longer endorse either man's work. I can't, I wouldn't say throw away the books.

Even though some people have said throw them away, I'm not there yet, but I am in a place where I wouldn't,

I wouldn't sell their books. I wouldn't teach their material in our church. And I certainly would not endorse someone going out and buying their materials.

Now that people feel differently about that. I just think at this point, there's, there's a huge question mark around both men, both men's ministries.

And so I don't endorse their materials anymore. Having said that, going back to the question, there was a part of the question

I wanted to address. And that was, um, should you tell your friend that Ravi had a fall?

That's, that's more of the question you said. You have a friend who's really getting good information out of Ravi's books.

Should you break the news to him? Um, it surprises me that he doesn't already know because the information about Ravi was so widespread, but it might be worth at least mentioning to him that there have been some question marks raised about Ravi's moral upstanding, uh, or his, his moral standing.

And the reason why I say it might be better coming from you than coming from someone else. And here, here's, here's the scenario

I imagine happening. This guy is reading Ravi Zacharias probably because of apologetics.

Ravi, Ravi Zacharias was an apologist mainly. And so, um, let's say this guy is in a conversation with an atheist and he quotes

Ravi Zacharias and says, well, Ravi Zacharias said, blah, blah, blah. And the atheist said, yeah, well,

Ravi Zacharias did blah, blah, blah. That would be bad for him to have to hear in that conversation, right?

That would be bad for him to find out that way. It would probably be better if you told him about it and talked to him about it.

And again, there's still so many question marks about what the accusations were against Ravi and the things that were potentially part of, of his life.

So I would just simply say. It might be better coming from you. If he, if you're, if you're wondering, should

I tell this guy? Yeah. But, um, again, just let him know, Hey, I understand you're getting a lot from this guy, but you need to know before you go quoting him or before you go citing him in your conversations with atheists or whatever, that you need to know that there are some question marks about his life that were raised after his death.

All right. Okay. Is it wise for Christians to read books from, from people of different religions in order to learn from them things for our daily living?

How do we determine where to draw lines? How do we think through this? Not wanting to be closed minded or legalistic, but also wanting to be wise in who we learn from.

Okay. This, this is part of a longer email. And the question that's the, the, the, the question is based on this, the, the, the person who sent in this email went to their elders and the elders recommended some material from, from a non -Christian source.

So that I'm trying to give a context to the question and the question that is being asked is, is it wise for Christians to read books from people from different religions and they go on to say, you know,

I don't mean not reading books in order to perceive differences, such as Mormon or Catholic mysticism, or for people to read books on how to change a flat tire or something like that, these are specifically devotional books written from a non -Christian perspective.

What are my thoughts on that? That's the, that's the question. And to be honest with you, I find it very surprising that elders would be recommending books from a non -Christian perspective that are meant to provide spiritual insights.

And so let me give you some thoughts on this. I, I do, when

I'm studying, I do often reference people that I know are either unbelievers or liberal theologians and things like that, because there are times where even if their conclusions are bad, their research is still good.

And a good example of that is right now in my early church history class for the last two weeks,

I have been referencing some, some of the information put out by Bart Ehrman. Now Bart Ehrman is an agnostic professor of religion.

I believe he's at North Carolina Chapel Hill, but I'm not sure if he's still there.

I know that's where he used to be. And I've referenced Bart Ehrman on the life of Constantine.

I've referenced Bart Ehrman on second century writers because Bart Ehrman does his homework when it comes to history.

He was a Marcion was the second century person that I referenced Bart Ehrman about.

So I am willing to reference unbelievers, especially if I'm looking at history,

I'm willing to reference scholars that don't believe the Bible. If I'm, if I'm teaching something or something is, is important that they have said that is correct because when it comes to historical facts and things like that, maybe not the conclusion about those facts, but at least the facts themselves, sometimes they get it right.

And so there are times where I will do that, but that doesn't really answer your question.

I'm just, I'm just trying to contextualize this because when we talk about the subject of devotional materials,

I really would need to know a little bit more about what it is that you're being recommended from your leadership before I could say yes or no, because again,

I want to think the best of your elders. I want to think that these men would not be pointing you in any way that would be negative.

So I think that it's important to, to, to think best of your elders, if you can, and to think that what they're doing, they're, they're trying to do right by your soul, but also at the same time, understand that even elders can make mistakes.

So would I recommend devotional material that wasn't Christian to try to teach people spiritual truths?

Probably not. I would have to be, there would have to be, someone would have to show me something that, that had value.

And there are things that have value that are, that, that from a, from a philosophical perspective or something like that.

But in general, if it's something trying to teach a principle, a life principle,

I wanted to be based on scripture and not be from someone who doesn't believe the Bible. So it would be hard for me to say that I would recommend that.

But again, I would, I would need to know what they were recommending and what the purpose was before I could make a final arbitration and decision, but it doesn't sound good.

That's as best as I can say right now, based on the question. You're not going to learn how to live a holy life because that's what you said, you know, truths on how to live a holy life.

You're not going to learn how to live a holy life from a person who is not a believer and a person who's not using scripture.

Start with the book of Proverbs. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Jen, you want to bring in our next ad read for me?

Sure. We live in a time, this actually goes right with it. We live in a time where many want to avoid theology, thinking that it is not necessary for the

Christian life. This cannot be further from the truth. Theology, the study of God is necessary for every

Christian to understand not only God by how he wants us to live. Theology is not something for the ivory towers.

The deeper our theology, the deeper our love for God will be in our desire to live for him. What do we believe is a great systematic theology starter for new believers yet has so much theology that it will quickly become a quick reference resource for many mature

Christians. This book is organized so that any reader could quickly get to answers they might need when looking for answers to theological questions.

Yep. What do we believe put out by striving for eternity ministries is available and you can get it in the description below.

And again, if you use my name, Keith, K E I T H, you will get a percentage off.

By the way, it is K E I T H today. I was on a, I did a debate earlier today. For those who don't know, I debated, well, had a, had a discussion with Dr.

Matthew Everhard, Pastor Matthew Everhard, awesome scholar. We talked about the

Sabbath. We took two different positions on the Sabbath. He takes the Westminsterian position. Ooh, Westminsterian.

That's a hard thing. Hard word to say Westminster position. It's the Westminsterian position on the

Sabbath. And, uh, I don't, so I took a different position and we were on the Reformation Red Pill podcast, and I'll be posting that video to my channel next week,

I'm going to give it a little chance to give it a chance to get some traction on the Red Pill channel first. So if you want to see it, you can go over to Reformation Red Pill and watch the debate between me and Matthew Everhard.

Uh, but you'll notice there that he spelled my name K I E T H. It's not K I E T H.

It's K E I T H. Keith, I before E except after C.

Wait, no, that's still not right. But K E I T H. Yes. All right. So let's move on to the next question.

Question number, is this number five? Number five. All right. Number five. Hey brother, just watched the

Q and A from Friday Night Live. I was wondering what you make of the Trinitarian argument for limited atonement, essentially to argue that the son died for more people than the father elected and the spirit sanctifies when introduced discord into the works of the

Trinity. The son would be doing over and above that, which the other persons of the

Trinity did in salvation. For me, this really clenches the issue because of inseparable operations.

On a more personal note, since you homeschool your kiddos, do you have any general tips that you found in educating your daughter?

I'm a teacher at a classical Christian school with some students that are autistic to varying degrees and just always looking for wise counsel as to how

I can serve them best. Well, this one's long and it's two questions. So let me deal with the first question.

The first question is the Trinitarian argument for limited atonement, Trinitarian argument for limited atonement.

And for those of you who don't know what the doctrine of limited atonement, the doctrine of limited atonement says that when Christ died on the cross, he died a penal substitutionary atonement.

And that that atonement was only intended for those who were the elect or those who are believers.

And so his atonement did not atone for the sins of those who are not believers. And therefore those who are not believers, those who are not elect will go to hell.

And so we say the atonement of Christ is limited. And this is based primarily just on the logical reality that if Christ died and his death paid the penalty for someone, then their penalty is paid and they're not going to go to hell.

But because people do go to hell, there certainly has to be some form of limitation to the atonement.

But the question regarding the Trinitarian argument, I think the Trinitarian argument is good. Last, I think it was last week or two weeks ago, someone asked me the best argument, simple argument for the, for limited atonement, and I made the argument from Owen's work, which is the argument that Christ either died for all of the sins of some men, some of the sins of all men or all of the sins of all men, and I worked through what that means.

But I also said, you know, that's a simple way of explaining limited atonement.

The Trinitarian argument is a little deeper and it deals with, as he said, the fact that God has elected, the spirit has regenerated, and so has

Christ died for more than the father elected or the spirit regenerated. I don't know that this argument would satisfy someone who doesn't already accept unconditional election though.

That would be my only issue with this. If somebody doesn't accept unconditional election, which is part and parcel of Calvinism, you know, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement.

If someone doesn't accept limited atonement, it's likely they probably wouldn't accept unconditional election. But if you're saying that someone does accept unconditional election, then

I do think limited atonement would be the natural outgrowth of that, and I do think the Trinitarian argument would be a good one.

But again, if somebody like Leighton Flowers, oh, I mentioned his name, he's going to watch this now, he's going to make a 10 -hour response video.

Hi, Leighton, if you do watch it, it's good to see you, buddy. So if somebody like Leighton heard the

Trinitarian argument, he would already dismiss it because he's already dismissing unconditional election.

So for him, you're not even going to get to the Trinitarian argument for limited atonement because the

Trinitarian argument for limited atonement is based on the fact that the father has elected a certain people to be saved.

And so, yes, I think it's a useful argument for people who accept unconditional election, but I don't think it would be an argument that would be, well, it might be useful, but it probably would not be convincing to someone who already has rejected unconditional election.

So hopefully that makes sense, and hopefully that answers your question. Now, on the second part,

I wanted to pull Jennifer in on this because he asked the question about homeschooling. He said, do you have general tips that you have found in educating your daughter?

Is he, you, you, you read these before, is he referring to Hope specifically?

Okay. Cause we have a daughter who is, um, who is autistic.

And so autistic children come with unique, uh, uh, challenges when it comes to their education.

Um, the good thing about Hope is that she is what's known as high functioning autism. So she was able to learn to read very early, uh, and has been reading for, for a very long time and reads very well.

And so, um, and, uh, you know, that depending on a child's where they are regarding their autism, um, that may be difficult, but he's asking for tips for educating our daughter.

Um, Jennifer, do you have some thoughts about this? Yeah, she's well with her and with most autistic children that I've, I've met like at church and just through various groups, they're just very black and white.

Thinker. She doesn't understand. I, I don't know.

So it's difficult to explain some math is easy for her, easier for her because there's a method and every time you do, it's going to be a certain way.

But sometimes communication wise, she, you know, she'll ask later because it's so involved, especially she's 12.

So her peer group, she'll say, did I say that right? Or, you know, I don't,

I don't know, trying to navigate those things with her. What would you say? I think that, um, based on the question, you know, asking, uh, you know, for, for wise counsel,

I'm going to tell you the best homeschooling counsel I remember ever receiving. And this was years ago.

I heard someone say this and I have found it helpful ever since. And that is, um, because a lot of people say, well,

I'm not qualified homeschool. I don't feel qualified or my child, you know, I can't teach them. This person said the best, the best part of homeschooling is teaching your child to read, instilling in them a love of reading and then giving them good books to read.

Right. So, so it's like, there's, there's two parts of homeschooling, teach your child to read, give them good books to read. I think that is,

I think even though that's maybe overly simplified, I think that is one of the best things that you can do is really try to help your child learn to read and help them to love reading and do, do your best to do that.

I want to give my wife all the credit in the world. A lot of you don't know this, but Jennifer used to work for a company called

VIP kid. She was a English language tutor and she tutored children from other countries and how to learn the

English language. And while working there, she learned a lot of really great ways to help people learn how to understand language.

Well, she took that and, and, and brought that into our homeschooling. And now with our children has taught all of our children how to read very, very well.

And so our 12 year old reads well, our nine year old reads well, our seven year old reads well. Our two year old is, you know, he's, he's, he's trying.

We're not there yet. So our one tip, at least my one tip for homeschooling is, is really focused on your child's ability to read.

It will benefit them biblically because they'll be able to better understand scripture. It will benefit them in just about every area of learning because they will be able to pick up books and learn about whatever subject they want because they can learn through those books.

And certainly there are other things you're going to have to teach them, math and science and things like that. But often those come through books.

And so the better they can read, the better off they're going to be. And that regardless of whether they're autistic or not.

But again, autistic children do come with particular challenges. So, yeah. And one other thing

I was thinking of, which you can't really do this at a classical course or at a school is with Hope. I have to give her some time.

She needs time just to get energy out like we in between subjects, you know, go take 10 minutes, take 15 minutes and we'll come back.

So it's very flexible and very. I have to think more on the tips. I'm not sure.

OK, I see something here. There's something going on in the comments, something about Keith would wish Keith would respond.

So let's see. So says. At Mary M .M.,

if only Keith would read that sentence. Well, what did Mary write? Mary M .M.,

let's see, not quite sure. Oh, is it the thing about the

Spurgeon's little book of defensive Calvinism? By the way, this is sometimes hard keeping up with you.

You guys are commenting faster than we can read sometimes. So I'm not sure what

I'm supposed to be seeing here. OK, good question here by Joshua.

You might know this, Jennifer. I don't know the answer to this question. He asked, do classical Christian schools have people trained in special education?

I don't know the answer to that. I do not know the answer to that question. We've had to we have looked into different schools for our daughter because even though she's homeschooled now, she wasn't homeschooled for a couple of years.

We put her into private school. It was a private Christian school and there was a wonderful teacher there who loved to work with her.

And it was a school that focused on children with special needs. And we put her in that school to help her socially.

After a couple of years, we felt like we got the benefit that we wanted and we brought her back to homeschool. But I don't know about classical

Christian schools, whether or not they focus. So I can't answer that question, and I'm sorry.

All right. Mary, again, no at Douglas's comment.

Keith, about Leighton. OK. I didn't see it. I'm sorry.

This is keep up, Keith. Bubblegum said, keep up. I'm trying. I really am doing my best.

You are faster than me. OK. Somebody said it was concerning Leighton flowers.

OK, Sheldon put this. Our Christian school has those resources. I'm sure it varies and I don't know what I don't know what classical

Christian is. OK. Yeah, it's classical Christian education is just a form of Christian education. It's a specific type.

Not all not all Christian schools are classical Christian schools and not all classical schools are Christian. Yeah. Yeah.

There's a few in our in Jacksonville that are I think there's one classical Christian school, but there's many that are secular.

That are. Yeah, so, yeah, I'm sure a secular school would have special education, but I don't know if our local

I think our local classical school does not have a special educational program, but I don't know.

Yeah. All right. I want to throw this up there before we go to the next question on the list. Michael Rogers asked this.

Is there a way one could affirm unconditional election without definite atonement, as in God wants to save everyone and Jesus died for everyone, but only those who have been elected can accept it?

Um, Michael, there there are those who who do affirm unconditional election and don't affirm limited atonement or what you call.

And I prefer this definite atonement. I actually prefer particular redemption, but definite atonement is also very good, good language.

In fact, there was a man who offered to debate me two or three months ago because he wrote a book arguing that Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement.

And he and he said the earlier early reformers didn't believe in limited atonement. And that was something that was a later development in Calvinistic theology.

And I told him I wasn't at that point ready to debate that subject, not because I can't debate limited atonement.

I believe I can, but because I didn't I didn't know enough about the argument he was making to feel like I could make a good debate.

So, uh, but I do know that there are people out there who make that argument. And quite honestly,

I haven't read his book, so I can't give you his reasoning why, but there are those who believe it. I, like you think it's hard to understand how

God can choose, uh, those who will be saved and then the mechanism by which they're going to be saved would be somehow universal to all men.

Some people call it a, um, a universal offer. Some people call it a hypothetical universalism that the, the offer is hypothetically universal, but it's actually only applicable to the elect.

So there are, there are some conversations there that come up. Uh, but I tend to just hold the, the simple straight five points, you know,

God, uh, because of man's depravity, God chooses not based on anything he finds in us. He chooses according to his own will.

And then he sends the son to die for those whom he chose. He irresistibly draws them to the sun. And because they are drawn to the sun, they will be regenerated and persevere to the end.

That's the five points of Calvinism per Keith Foskey. That's the Keith Foskey inversion. So we've got

Westminsterian, unnavigable, Foskeyian, Calvinism.

All right, let's, uh, what comment? Leighton finds Westminsterian unnavigable.

Hey, that's, that's what it was. And I just, I just added to it Foskeyian. So Westminsterianism unnavigable at Keith.

Thank you, Douglas, for that hilarious comment. Awesome. All right. Let's move on to another question.

Yeah. I see many KJVO bring up this argument regarding other Bible translations because Jesus is removed from Daniel 3 25.

I know that KJ refers to the son of God while my ESV and other translations refer to it as the son of God's.

I believe it is a contextual issue being that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't converted at that time. I'd like your thoughts on this.

Maybe on the next Friday night. Live. Yeah. It's on Friday night live. We're here. All right. My thoughts on this are pretty simple.

Um, this, this particular issue is really a King James versus other translation issue that is based on the

Aramaic, which is underneath it. And this particular text is, I believe in Aramaic, but the

Aramaic word is similar to the Hebrew word. The Hebrew word is Elohim. And Elohim is a plural use of the word

God, but it is sometimes used in the singular. For instance, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Well, that word there is

Elohim. Elohim can be used in the plural, but can also be used in the singular, as we just said in the beginning,

God created the heavens and the earth. So in this case, when Nebuchadnezzar saw the fourth person in the fire, he said, it looks like a son of the gods according to the

ESV translation. But according to the King James, it says he looks like the son of God. And where the issue comes up for most people is if you want to believe that that is a

Christophany, that that's Jesus in the fire, then you want it to say son of God.

And that's the way that it's often preached. Well, the fourth man in the fire was

Jesus. But is that what Nebuchadnezzar actually meant to communicate?

Was he saying the man in there looks like the son of God, i .e. Jesus, or was he simply saying that looks like a divine figure or a son of the gods?

I think the latter, that second one, is probably more in line with what Nebuchadnezzar would have understood, unless God gave him some kind of spiritual or revelational insight into who that person was.

So it comes down oftentimes in cases like this, if a person is a King James preferred, not just King James only, but a

King James preferred person, often they'll say it's son of God because that's what the King James says, or that's what I want it to say.

But looking into it, there's really no way to know for certain what was in the mind of Nebuchadnezzar when he saw what he saw.

And if you want to believe that fourth person was Jesus, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. I think that's fine. I like, there's a song my mom used to sing in church called

He's Still in the Fire, and it was a song about Jesus walking through the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

So I think there is some good encouraging thoughts that come out of that, but I'm not going to say for certain who the fourth person was.

Was it Jesus? Was it Michael the Archangel? Was it another angel? I'm not certain.

And I don't think the text gives us certainty. All right. I'll try to talk loud.

Is it a little hard? I can turn her up. Boy, tell me you need some more, Mrs. Foskey. I'll give you some more. All right. Plus you don't put it, you don't put it as close to your mouth as I do.

Bring it in. And I'm quiet. Yes. And you are, you're soft -spoken. Beautiful and soft -spoken.

Wonderful. All right. Goodness. Okay. This is two questions. Ooh, I have to ask,

I have to answer this one. This is, I'm sorry. I just got excited. Ooh, icky poop. My happy noise. Okay. He said,

Dylan, uh, who I don't know if you've ever been on the show before Dylan, good evening. Nice to meet you. You said, if you were to make a left behind movie from an amillennial perspective, what would happen in the movie?

That is a terrific question. I would love to make an amillennial movie because it would just be

Jesus comes back the end. It would just be like so simple.

It would just be like, they just, just. That's it. Just Jesus returns.

Cause the amillennial position is so simple. It really is very basic. Uh, there, there, there, there's no pre -tribulation rapture.

There's, uh, the questions about the, um, the, the, what's going to happen at the end is, is there going to be a tribulation time and many, many amillennialists would say there's going to be a time of a period of tribulation, but in general, the left behind movie would just be

Jesus comes and we go, Oh, wait, who are you looking for here? I redeemed zoomers out there where my boy at.

There he is. He says, please do more of these. God bless. We do it every Friday night.

Well, we have for the last two months. So this is like our eighth or ninth episode, but thanks, man.

I want to say something about redeemed zoomer. He is such a nice young man to me and has been very kind to me.

We have a lot of fun conversations and, uh, and I'm thankful. He always says nice things in the comments of my videos.

So thank you, brother. I really appreciate you very much. All right. So, uh,

I think this gives you an idea for another short, doesn't it? What's that? The left behind, left behind from the millennial perspective.

It's just like, it's over. Jesus is back for the wind.

It's like, it's it. All right. Uh, okay.

Oh, real quick. Dwayne green asks a very important question. Is Batman, Batman, a

Christmas movie. Batman returns is a Christmas movie. Batman returns is one of the top five Christmas action movies of all times.

You got Batman returns, gremlins, uh, uh, lethal weapon, die hard. And first blood, all of them,

Christmas action movies. Awesome. All right. All right.

So let's move on, Jim. We got a lot more questions and we're already at the hour mark. I know we're not, I don't know if we're going to get to all these tonight and we're, we're trying, we're kind of goofing around, but we want to have fun.

We had 17 questions coming in. So no way we're going to get through this, but, uh, we may have to,

I may have to just send some people some emails. By the way, if I don't get to your question on the show,

I either send an email back, I try to never leave somebody hanging. I either try to send you an email back or put it in the show.

So if we don't get it tonight, you'll probably get an email from me. Roll over till next week. We'll do like a five hour special.

If it's something I think can hang, we'll just roll it to next week. Okay. Two questions. Oh, this is from my son for tonight.

One, is it okay to promise or swear? I know we read, let your, let your yes be yes and no be no, but then we also read about swearing and taking oaths and we can swear by nothing greater.

What are your thoughts? I've always taught my kids not to swear. Just be honest. And no one has the need to make you promise.

And if someone does ask quote, if you will promise something, tell them, let your yes be yes and no be no, like the

Bible set teaches you. Second question. Wait, before you get to the second question, I want to say, I agree with so much of what you said.

And for those who didn't maybe understand what he was saying is he's, he's encouraging his children not to have to swear or not to have to, to make an oath, but simply let their yes be yes and their no be no.

That's exactly right. And that's what Jesus is teaching us in Matthew chapter five. He's telling us that we shouldn't have to take an oath.

We shouldn't have to swear by heaven or by earth or any other thing. Our yes should be yes.

And our no should be no. But where this becomes an issue is the issue of, okay, what if, what if, what if you're required to take an oath?

For instance, when you go into the courtroom and they ask you, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because you're going to be under oath, is it a sin to do that?

I don't think that Jesus is telling us it's a sin to do that because in that context, you're not doing it because you're, you're trying to hide something or you're not doing it because you're, you're being less than truthful any other time.

If I stood in a courtroom and they said, do you swear to tell the truth? I would say yes. And this is my duty as a

Christian to always do that. Right? Like I'm always under oath because as a Christian, I should always tell the truth.

I shouldn't only tell the truth when I'm under oath. So I don't think it's a sin if it's required by law, if it's required, you know, my son is in the air force when he took his oath to uphold the constitution.

I don't think he was sinning when he did that. But he has, the scripture is telling us we shouldn't have to do that as Christians.

Our yes should be yes. And our no should be no. The apostle Paul talks about this in second Corinthians. He says, I, I am,

I'm somebody I'm telling, I tell the truth. I'm a person who is, I, I, I, the scripture just went out of my mind, but it's early in second

Corinthians when he talks about having his integrity called into question. And Paul says that he actually is trustworthy because of who he is.

And so I think that's an important, uh, part of being a

Christian, being a Christian is a person of integrity. You're always in that sense under oath, because everything you say, you know, you're saying, uh, should be trustworthy.

So that's, I think what you're saying to your son is good. He shouldn't have to do that, but I don't think it's a sin if, if, if it's required of him to do that, to join the military or to testify in court or something like that.

But I would, I would say if I were testifying in court, I would say, I certainly swear to tell the truth because that is my duty as a

Christian. Okay. The second question. We know karma is a Hindu religious word.

Is it okay if a Christian says something like that's karma or if that that's a word that should never be said by a

Christian? Is it joking around with the word karma? Okay. Wait, hold on. Is joking around with the word karma.

Okay. Is basically the question. We know it's nonsense and it is more appropriate to say you reap what you sow.

This is a very good question. In fact, um, at our church, every two months we do a Q and a with the elders.

It's always fun. And one of the ladies asked about the subject of karma, and I don't want to spend too much time on this because of how many questions we have, but I want to say this about the subject of karma.

Um, karma is related to a more, a larger religious idea, and that is the, the

Hindu religious idea of, uh, of this idea of, of balancing the universe.

And so when you do evil, evil is going to be visited upon you because of this, this dualistic view of the, of the universe around us.

And so there's karma is not just, you reap what you sow.

Karma is part of a, a system of the universe balancing itself out. So when you do good, good's going to come when you do bad, bad's going to come.

Uh, you know, like, uh, in, in the, you know, you, somebody would do something good and they'll say,

Oh, that's good karma for you. Or somebody does something bad. Oh, that's bad karma for you. Because you're, it's a different way of looking at the universe.

It's not a Christian way of looking at the universe. So you asked the question, can you joke about it? I joke about everything.

I joke about a lot of stuff, especially false religions and false teachings. But, but we do need to understand that karma is not the same as you reap what you sow.

You reap what you sow is a principle in scripture that we are told that there are, there are principles of life that if you, if you sow evil things, um, then, then the, then, then what you are sowing is going to bear fruit.

And one of my professors used to say this, he said, you always reap what you sow, you always reap later than you sow, and you always reap more than what you sow, right?

So you, so if you re if you, if you sow evil, you're going to reap evil, you're going to reap more evil and you're going to reap, you're going to reap, uh, uh, later it's going to come.

So, so, but that's not karma. It's not the same thing. Uh, and so I do think there needs to be at least a, um, a distinguishing of those things.

And a good point was just made by Joshua niece. Yeah. The idea of karma, it's not based on works.

It's, or it's based on works and not on grace as well, but it's an entire religious system that is, uh, this is the whole idea of reincarnation in those, in those belief systems, because you have to have this opportunity to balance.

You have this opportunity again. So you didn't get it right the first time you get to come back and do it again. And it's just not something that I think is,

I don't think the language is useful for a Christian. When I hear the Christian say karma or Christian say good vibes or something like that,

I think we we've stepped out of Christianity and given way to another worldview. So that's my thought about that.

I hate that phrase. I was just going to say about good vibes to sing. I hate when I hate that people say

I'm sending you good vibes. Don't don't don't vibe me, bro.

I don't need it. I don't want it. You know? Um, so there, those are great for you.

Yeah. Yeah. Was there a second question? Oh, that was the second question. Okay, good. Oh, wow.

We're after the minute mark. Okay. Yep. We're at the hour mark, but we might get to a few, few more.

Yeah, we, these are shorter questions. So let's, let's, let's hear it, Jennifer. All right. This is encouraging too.

Okay. Hi, my children, ages nine to 12 are interested in eschatology and revelation as a pauper.

I come to the king of the millennials for suggestions of resources to help me in explaining it to them.

Where's your crown? Oh my, oh my crown. It's not close enough to get a, it's actually my,

I have to, I have a crown here, but I have a crown in the other room. For those who don't know, I am the self -proclaimed king of the amillennialist, but I didn't actually self -proclaim that I was given that title by eschatology matters.

I'm the king. Yes. Of the amillennialists. And the question is, yes. Oh yes. Bow to the king.

Um, question children, ages nine to 12 interested in eschatology and revelation.

Um, here, here's something that I really emphasize when it comes to teaching people, eschatology, especially you're asking about your children.

You need to ensure that before you get to the questionable parts of eschatology, that you deal with the non questionable parts of eschatology.

What people don't often remember is that when you're studying eschatology, it begins with questions of death.

Um, it begins with the question of Jesus's return. It deals with the question of heaven and hell and eternal consequences.

All of those are eschatological before you ever get to a question of millennial positions, or before you ever get to a question of how to interpret revelation.

I think it's important that you help your child or children understand the things that are taught in the ancient creeds, such as the apostle's creed, um, about the return of Christ, those things which all

Orthodox Christians can affirm. Make sure they understand that Christ is coming again.

Make sure they understand that when he comes again, they will face him, that, that, that, that they will give an account for their lives and that ultimately their salvation is based on grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Those things are important. Um, that those are, those are the first things that I would say.

Also remind them that we all live in our own end times. People always say, do people ask me, do, do, do, do we live in the end times?

My answer is yes, but it might not be the end of the world, but it's, it's your end times because within a hundred years, you're not going to be here.

Right. For me, it's 50 years. I don't, I don't have 50 years left. I don't think I'm 44.

If I lived in 94, I'll be very surprised. Right. Um, so I'm within,

I'm, I'm at, I'm at the middle point of my life. I'm in my own end time.

And so I need to be prepared for death more than I need to be concerned with what the return of Christ is going to look like and what the millennium is going to look like.

So that's my, I say that to everybody, not just to your question about nine to 12 year olds, absolutely begin with that.

And then after that, if you want to go into revelation and you want to go into millennial positions and things like that, my recommendation to you is to teach them the basics of all the different positions and show them why they are distinct.

And a great resource for this is Rose Publishing's book of charts.

You remember this? I bought this for Jennifer years ago, and it, it actually is for sale.

You can buy it in Walmart because that's where I bought my first one. But ever, but since then I have bought several of these books and, um, they, they have charts on so many biblical things.

They have charts on the tabernacle. They have charts on the, the, how we got the

Bible, things like that. But, but one of the charts in that book of charts is a chart of the different end time positions.

And so you could start with something like that for, for you, for your nine to 12 years old, and you can begin to work their way through what these different end time positions are proposing and whatever your position is.

If your position is on millennial, like me, you can show them that the on millennial position really is the simplest of the positions.

Um, and I know that I have some post -meal people out there. I love you. Um, but the, uh, the on millennial position is to me, the simplest position and position

I espouse. So that would be the one that I would want to teach to my children, but I would want them to understand why this is even a conversation and, and read them the text, help them to understand where it's coming from, from the text.

And, um, and so Rose book of published Rose publishing book of charts is one good place to start.

Somebody mentioned in channel that, uh, there's also books, uh, like,

I think somebody mentioned Kim Riddlebarger's book, um, that might be a little bit of a, a big bite for a nine to 12 year old.

But, um, but again, you know, your children's level better than I do.

Uh, another good resource that can help you and them is the

Moody handbook of theology. It's, it's not hugely popular, but I use it all the time when

I'm teaching, because it does, it does explain things very well. And it's, it's in such a way that it's very accessible for, for many readers.

So the Moody handbook of theology it's by Paul Enns, E -N -N -S not

Peter Enns, Peter Enns, liberal guy, Paul Enns, uh, I believe he's conservative, but the certainly presents, uh, theology in a conservative way and it would walk you through the different views on the end times.

So those are two resources that I would recommend the, uh, Rose book of charts and the Moody handbook of theology.

All right, let's, uh, hold on Moody handbook, no jokes, bubblegum said, no,

I, I, I, not a joke. I, I, I think it's a good resource. It's not Calvinistic, but it doesn't, it doesn't poo -poo on Calvinism either.

It explains, uh, theology in five different ways. Uh, it explains theology, um, biblical theology, historical theology, systematic theology, dogmatic theology, and then

I think what they call like, um, eclectic theology. So it's like, there's like five different ways to see theology, but under the systematic theology heading, there's going to be a section on eschatology that you can go and, and, and use.

All right. Moving on where we at on time. Uh, we got a few minutes. Let's let's keep it, keep on keeping on.

The baptism verses in first Peter have always been very confusing for me. Can you explain what is meant by the

Noah comparison and the phrase baptism now saves you? Yes. Um, baptism saves you.

Okay. Next question. Oh boy.

Uh, okay. This is, this is one of those times where there, there are some very difficult, uh, passages that we have to address depending on what our view of baptism is.

And so I do believe that in scripture, baptism and salvation are linked together often in such a way that they're inseparable.

For instance, on the day of Pentecost, Peter says, repent and be baptized in the name of the

Lord, Jesus Christ for the repentance, for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy spirit. That passage is in there.

And often people who argue for baptismal regeneration or like in the church of Christ, for instance, they argue for what's called baptismal remission or a baptism of remission for sins.

They will cite Acts 2 38 and then other passages they will cite would be like John 3 5 that says, uh,

Jesus says, unless one is born of water and the spirit. And then of course, first Peter, where it refers to, uh, uh,

Noah being saved through water, and then it says, and, and corresponding to this, your baptism now saves you, but then it goes on to say not the washing away of dirt from the flesh, but the response of a good conscience towards God.

And I think that second part of it is, is the part that I think is most important when it comes to the second

Peter or the, the, the, the writing there in the, in the letters of Peter, because he, he immediately adds a qualification.

He says, yes, your baptism now saves you, but it's not the washing of the flesh. Uh, it's the response of a good conscience towards God.

This is, this is what a person who has a good conscience towards God does. They get baptized. So there is a sense in which baptism is tied to our salvation.

But just like in my debate with, um, Redeem Zumer, who may still be out there, if you're still out there, you're hanging with us, we talked about this because my, my issue is not that baptism and salvation have a link.

My issue is what is the link is, is the link causal or not? I do not believe baptism causes salvation.

And that is where I think the biggest issue comes in is I don't think that baptism is the cause of our, of our regeneration, because I know that there are times in scripture where we're shown that people are regenerated prior to baptism.

We see this in this, in the situation with Cornelius, uh, Peter saw Cornelius and he said, well, here's a man who has the spirit, the same as we do.

What, who, what would prevent water from this person being baptized? And so even in that context, we see someone who is, who is regenerated.

They're, they're given the spirit, but they're not yet baptized. And so I don't believe baptism causes our salvation, but I do believe that it is linked to our salvation in that it has the purpose of tying together the outward with the inward.

Right. So what's happening on the inside is demonstrated.

And I don't like the phrase, an outward show of an inward change. I don't like that because I think it over it's too simple, but, but, but there is a sense in which the, the external sign is, is the symbol of what happens on the inside, because what has happened on the inside is that the person has died to sin and been made alive to Christ.

They've been regenerated. And the washing of regeneration, the washing that happened on the inside is pictured by the washing on the outside.

If I believed that baptism caused salvation, then

I would never hesitate to baptize someone. And this is why, um, this is why in the church of Christ, if you are at, if you're in a church of Christ, typically they have the baptism ready at, at any time, because if somebody says they believe in Christ, they want to baptize them immediately, but in the historic church, it wasn't that way, even as far back as the

Didache, when someone was going to be baptized, they would hold them back from, and they would, they would put them through a time of catechesis.

They would put them through a time of learning before they would baptize them. If they, if, if, if it was in sense, if it was believed that baptism caused salvation and you would be holding someone back from that by holding that baptism,

I think that would be an issue there. So, um, I do believe baptism is a sign of our salvation.

I believe it's linked to our salvation, but I don't think it causes our salvation. So, um, if that's constant, like our children, yeah, yeah, we would definitely.

Um, and, and, and this is typically what is believed by most

PCA pastors. I know Radim Zuma and I talked about this because he does believe in a, uh,

I don't want to, well, I don't want to say what he believes in our conversation. And this has been over almost a year ago now that we did our debate.

I think he said he believed in a form of baptism regeneration, but I don't, I don't want to put words in his mouth that I certainly don't want to misrepresent him, but there are those in Presbyterian circles who believe that by baptizing the infant there, they are conferring upon them, um, grace.

And then, and some believe that that is the grace of regeneration. But I know that typically in the

PCA, that's not correct, uh, that they don't believe that. So, uh, hopefully, hopefully you understand what

I'm saying. I don't think it's as simple as saying baptism doesn't have anything to do with our salvation.

Cause some people will say that baptism doesn't have anything to do with your salvation. No, I think that it does, but I don't think it's the cause of our salvation.

I think it is, it is the outward, uh, expression of what has occurred through the

Holy Spirit in our heart. All right. Do we have time for another question or?

Okay. Someone, um, Arditi enthusiast, um, that's interesting name.

He says going on and on about baptism can only confuse the saving message of faith alone. Like you end up, like you could end up confusing someone.

Okay. Um, well, let me, let me respond to that because I don't want to confuse anyone.

Justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. But when we believe in Christ, there are natural results.

There are natural things that we do as a result of that faith. And one of the things that we do is be baptized.

And so this is why I'm saying they're linked in the ancient world. The idea of asking someone, you know, how do you, how did you ask someone if they were a

Christian, you said, have you been baptized? Baptism is what is what it was the outward show of what tied you to Christ.

And so we can't just simply walk away and say that that doesn't have any relevance.

It does. It's relevant to being the expression of our faith in Christ.

In fact, I, a lot of churches say, walk in the aisle, sign the card, shaking the pastor's hand.

Historically, that was not the way you showed you were a Christian. Historically, the way you showed you were a Christian was through baptism.

So that's the link. And that's important to mention. All right. So, it's an hour and 15 minutes and I am 44 years old.

I am tired. So why don't we do this? Stopping at 10 questions would be good.

Why don't we stop at question number 10? Okay. Last one.

This is I think a two part question too. Would you consider annihilationism a damnable heresy or just a misrepresentation?

It seems to me there are people who embrace it because they simply cannot imagine unbelievers, especially when that includes loved ones suffering eternal punishment in hell.

The idea of hell is not palatable to them. I'd love to hear your thoughts. How'd you become a

Calvinist? Oh, that's two different questions. I think that's from two different people. Oh, sorry.

The question, but I will say this. No, it's okay. Question of how did I become a Calvinist? There's actually a video about that and I can link that one.

So I'll add that in and I'll add a link. I have a whole series

I did. Actually, when I first started the podcast, it's how I became a Calvinist. It's five 15 minute videos.

So it only ends up being like an hour and a half, but it tells the whole story of what caused me to become a Calvinist and what scriptures changed my mind and things like that.

So I will link that in the description below how I became a Calvinist. So we ended up doing 11 questions, but, but, um, the question of annihilationism, would you consider annihilationism a damnable heresy or just a misrepresentation?

This is, this is a, this is a great question because this question really gets to the heart of what

I talk about when I talk about the three, the three circles. And most of you have heard me talk about this if you've been on the show for a while, but when we talk about theology, we say that there is, there are those things in the middle, which are definitional to being a

Christian. If you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, you're not a Christian. I believe if you don't believe in the

Trinity, you're not a Christian because that is definitional to what it means to be a Christian because it says that there's one

God, there are three persons who are called God, and those three persons are co -equal, co -eternal and distinct, the father, the son, and the

Holy spirit. Those are definitional. This is why we would say Jehovah witnesses aren't Christians. We would say Mormons aren't Christians because they deny one of these definitional things.

The second circle is what we call denominational. Like this is where your position on baptism would land.

This is where your position on ecclesiology would land. Whether you're a

Congregationalist or a Presbyterian or maybe an Episcopalian or something like that, your position on the church would land here.

And then there are those things on the third circle, which we call adiaphora. Adiaphora is the question, things like things that can be disagreed about even within the same church.

So your millennial position, maybe your position on tithing, that can differ and people can be in the same church.

So if you ask me, does someone holding the position of annihilationism put them out of the center circle,

I would ask this question, what is causing them to hold that position?

Because if the reason why they hold the position of annihilationism is because they say

God would not judge the wicked, then I think that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of God's nature and therefore it could be a definitional issue, but if they come to an understanding of annihilationism through reading certain passages such as in Revelation where it says that death and hell gave up their dead and they were poured into the lake of fire and their understanding of the lake of fire is that is where souls are being annihilated and that's how they're interpreting that.

I don't agree with that interpretation. I take a position of eternal conscious torment, ECT. I base this on several passages in the

New Testament, particularly when Jesus says where the worm shall not die and there'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth, these things, it seems to indicate that this is an ongoing thing, but I can see how we might come to different exegetical conclusions about that.

And a person still be seeking to be faithful to what the scripture says, but if a person, as I said, if a person says, well,

I don't believe God judges the wicked or I don't believe that God would do that, now you're coming at it from a different perspective.

Let me give you maybe a way to contextualize what

I'm saying. How you come to your conclusions can sometimes be as important as what your conclusions are.

For instance, I believe that there are there,

I don't believe a woman can be a pastor. Okay. I believe the Bible forbids that, right?

I base that on my exegetical conclusions from the pastoral epistles specifically, as well as the overall language of scripture, which teaches that men have a position of leadership in the home and in the church.

Someone may disagree with me on that and argue from a different position that a woman can be a pastor.

And if that person makes the argument like this, if they say, well, I think Paul was a sexist and I think everything

Paul said about women is wrong and therefore a woman can be a pastor, that's huge. That's a, because there that's, that's an, that's a wrong approach and it shows a diminishing of scripture.

It shows a misunderstanding of who God is, a misunderstanding of God's men that he chose the apostle

Paul specifically. That to me would call into question that person's fidelity to the word of God because they simply say, well,

Paul was a sexist or whatever. But if someone said, here's my, here's why

I believe a woman can be a pastor because of this and this and this in the text. And I come to this conclusion based on that. I still think they're wrong.

I think they're wrong, but I can at least engage with someone who's not simply throwing the scripture away or saying

Paul was a sexist. Am I making sense? That depending on how someone arrives at a conclusion will sometimes determine whether or not

I think that person is coming from a position of heresy or a position of faithful incorrectness.

Faithful, is faithful incorrectness the right term? Uh, uh, uh, so if that makes sense, someone who's coming to the text, trying to come to a right conclusion, and they've just simply made a mistake or come to a wrong conclusion is different than someone who's jettisoning the text or saying

God couldn't do it that way, or God wouldn't do it that way, or that's not the way God is. So that's my answer going back to the subject of annihilationism.

I do think that there are some ways that people could come to the, to the, to the conclusion of annihilationism, but I don't agree with them.

Uh, I think that a person who believes in annihilationism, because they believe that's what the text says,

I don't believe that's necessarily a damnable heresy, but it's certainly not something that, that we would teach in our church.

And this is, again, goes to a denominational issue within our denomination, it would not be able, or we're not in denomination, but we are part of FIRE, ironically, we're part of the

Fellowship of Independent Reform Evangelicals, and I don't know that there are any churches in our, uh, association that would allow for, um, someone to teach annihilationism.

I don't know. I'd have to ask. Uh, but certainly it would not be allowed to be taught in our church because, uh, it's not what we as a church have affirmed regarding the eternal destiny of the, uh, of the reprobate.

So I hope that that was helpful. I'm out of breath. Okay. We've got several questions

I'm going to set up for next week. Uh, maybe I'll email a few of these people back, tell them we tried our best to get to them, but my old age has, uh, has got to me.

Well, thank you guys for watching this hour and 24 minutes. I think that's all we're going to get to tonight. You guys have been so awesome.

Not only by watching the show, but sharing it, please continue to share. Please continue to, um, please continue to ask people to watch the show and help us get the 30 ,000.

Thank you for all the questions. Yes. So we're going to do a show next week. It's the, it's the beginning of the holidays. Are we going to do one?

It's the day after Thanksgiving. You want to do it? Do you guys want us to do one? If you want us to do one, leave it in the comments.

We'll know you're going to watch. And if you're going to watch, we're going to do it. All right, guys, we love you. And, uh, happy Thanksgiving and, uh, in the comments, put what you thought

I was drinking tonight. Give you a hint. John McArthur would love it. All right.

Don't forget. If you liked this episode, hit the thumbs up button. If you didn't hit the thumbs down button twice,