Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
All right, we're live. Hey, settle down back there. Man, you guys, simmer down. You guys are, you know, being obstreperous. Be obstreperous? All right, so if you guys have any comments or questions, you can do it online, you can do it here.
All right? Okay, make it good. No. The only thing that's inspired is the Bible, and they will say that. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC, Catechism of the Catholic Church, the CCC. It is an official document produced by the Roman Catholic Church, based out of Rome, in which its theology is codified and done by paragraph numbers.
And it has the neolobostat and the imprimatur, which means it is official, nothing in it contradicts Roman Catholic theology, and it's worth being disseminated and taught from it. And you can go online, and you can find a CCC, and you can just search it.
I have one on my browser toolbar, and whenever I do Roman Catholicism research in the Catechism, I click it, type in some words, and it's awesome. Boom, there it is, and I just use it all the time when I do Catholicism work.
So that's what that is. Also, the Baltimore Catechism is worth getting as well. The Baltimore Catechism, the one that I have, has in it how many years you get off from purgatory, based on various indulgences that you go through, which I think is useful because I want to know how many years am I going to be in purgatory, like 500 ,000?
I want some reduced time. It's a long time. Purgatory. 20 minutes is too long. Well, there's some things they could understand, and some things you can't understand. Just like a regular systematic theology, some Christians can understand certain things, and some cannot.
So it's a wide variety of topics. But it's pretty well done, in that it's not highfalutin. Some areas, you know, you go, okay, what's he saying? But it's well done. There are no dummies. They're lost, but there are no dummies.
It's well organized. Yeah. It's very valuable for research against Catholicism. Seriously. All right, next. Class.
Nobody else? Shish and Chong. All right. What do you got? So if someone says they have the gift, how do we know if someone has the gift? I'd ask them, what's going to happen tomorrow?
A gift of prophecy, the Bible sense has different interpretations of what it means. One is to expound on Scripture. One is also to prophesy the future. So the gift of prophecy, does it mean it's a permanent gift?
Or does it mean that God uses that person occasionally to do prophetic things? And so the way we would test is if it comes to pass or not. And it's just that simple. So I've exercised the gift once very strongly, but just once.
Does it mean I have the gift?
I wouldn't say so. So if someone misses one prophecy at once, does that mean they don't actually have the gift?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that because I do believe that Christians can have giftings in certain areas and then mess up in them. It doesn't mean they're not gifted in that area. So I'm gifted, I would say, in teaching.
But I can certainly mess up teaching. And it doesn't mean I don't have that gift. So logically speaking, I'd say that just because they mess up doesn't mean they don't have it. But with prophecy, it's a little bit different because you've got to be careful about it.
Because you start saying something that doesn't come to pass, get the stones out. Or don't listen to them, kind of a thing. All right.
Hey, finally, didn't have to deal with this headache. So I've noticed more and more that there are quite a few Calvinists who still hold to an Armenian Ordo Salutis. So I was wondering if you could run through the Order of Salvation and logical priority.
What you're generally talking about comes down to which comes first, faith or generation. Now, the Order of Salutis is longer in decrees, ordination, predestination. But it comes down, ultimately, you see in the Armenian sense.
We can talk about the issue of what proceeds comes first, regeneration or faith. And so there's temporal priority and logical priority. So I'll explain those. So temporal and logical priority. So temporal priority is I take this chalk, I let go, I catch it with my left hand.
It took a quarter of a second to fall or half a second, whatever it is. And so we have in temporal priority, we have an event. Then we have time. And then we have the result. So this right here, this time can vary.
That's called temporal priority. Logical priority is something different. And what I use to illustrate logical priority is a lightbulb. Now, I'm a bad lightbulb drawer, so don't mock me about my lightbulb.
It's a mutant alien lightbulb. Okay, they use them on spaceships. I've been there. Or a kidney. What's that? Or a kidney. Or a kidney. So here's the same lightbulb. Alright, and we have a little filament.
So when electricity enters the lightbulb, light is instantaneously there. Now technically, that's not correct. It takes a few milliseconds or whatever it is. You know, super, whatever. But technically, no really, it takes like 2 .85 milliseconds divided by the angel.
Shut up! What we're talking about here is the illustration that whenever electricity is present, light is also present. Okay? So when electricity is present, light is present. However, electricity is the cause of light.
Light is not the cause of electricity. They happen at the same time. So we would say electricity is logically prior to the light because it must be in place in order for the light to occur. It's not the case that light must be in place in order for the electricity to occur.
So we would say in logical priority that electricity is first and then light is second. But they happen simultaneously. So this is what we say by logical priority. In the case of salvation, we have regeneration and faith.
We would say its logical priority effect is like this. Whenever regeneration is present, faith is also present. But regeneration is logically prior to faith. It is the cause of faith, but faith is not the cause of regeneration.
This is why. Regeneration is the work of God. 1 Peter 1 .3. Faith is what we do. But, Philippians 1 .29. It has been granted that you believe. And our believing is the work of God. John 6 .28 .29. But regeneration absolutely is only God.
It's God alone. Okay? But here, let's just say God and man for now. Because we believe. We do the believing. But we don't do the regenerating. So, faith is the result of God's regenerative work in us.
And he grants that we believe. But it's work with us as well. So anyway, regeneration precedes faith. If regeneration precedes faith, Temporally, as Arminians teach, That's a problem. Because, let's just say, Just for the point of illustration, That there's a difference of five seconds.
Between here and here. In the sense of temporal priority. That would mean we'd have a regenerate person for five seconds, Who wasn't a believer. That doesn't work. But they'll say, No, you've got to believe before you become regenerate.
Okay, then you're a believer for five seconds before you become regenerate. So you have a believer who's not regenerate for a period of time. That doesn't make sense either. So the Arminian position, In my opinion, Is not one that's very well thought out.
And so that's what regeneration, And faith, or the Salud, Is basically in that area. We can talk about... I could teach in more depth if you want. Would you place repentance? You know, you believe, Oh wow, Jesus, oh wow, well that's right.
Oh, wait a minute, I'm not supposed to go out and lie anymore? Oh, so now repentance comes into place.
Yeah, in my mind, If I was a one true God, Would that have causation and effect?
But yeah, But yeah, this is the Christian perspective. This is the Reformed perspective. And the temporal one is the Arminian perspective. The Arminian one doesn't work. Because how do you... And you're right about him.
What you were saying about him, it was pretty obvious. I know, right? It was. My wife does the same thing. She's got a whole list of stuff like that.
Okay, you got more? They teach that Elohim used to be a sinner, who became a God.
I don't know for sure, but... I mean, I say, were you a sinner? Yes. You want to become a God? Yes. Was Elohim a sinner?
He was a rapist. Okay, so I guess by that logic, if he were a sinner, who then became a God, then what sin did he commit? He could have been a rapist. Could have been a child molester. Could have been an extortionist.
Which makes him an alien. Earned his salvation by being good enough. Man, can you imagine? I mean, seriously. You know what gets me is sometimes, when we talk about the Arminians a little bit, let me just remind you, that I'll talk to some people, I'd mostly like to debate Jesse Morella, on this pretty soon.
Well, not on this specifically, but the idea of Pelagianism, and semi-Pelagianism, in the church. Pelagianism is the teaching that when Adam and Eve fell, the descendants did not inherit a sinful nature.
Semi-Pelagianism is that when Adam and Eve sinned, that their descendants did inherit a sinful nature, but, not that bad. Calvinism says the sinful nature is totally depraved, you can't do anything. Now, technically, Arminianism says the same thing.
Official Arminianism teaches the same thing as Reformed view of total depravity. The difference in the upper levels of Arminianism basically comes with the issue of prevenient grace, which is kindergarten theology, in my opinion.
I've said that to people who got mad at me. But nevertheless, so, with Arminianism, you have the issue of believing as the necessary causation of your salvation. That they just need the right information, and because, we have Bob, and we have Frank.
And so, Bob believes, and Frank does not believe. Why? With Arminianism, because free will. Bob just chose to believe. But why did he choose to believe when Frank did not? Because that's a free will. Why is this guy's free will different than that guy's free will?
The same information, the same stuff. Because that's how it works, man. That's free will. It can't answer. Calvinism would say he believed because God granted it. He believed. Luke 1 .29. Works faith in him.
John 6 .28 .29. Was appointed to eternal life. That's why he believed that. 13 .48. Was constantly born again. 1 Peter 1 .3. Born again not of his own will. John 1 .13. We have the answer. What they have to do is then say, no, it's just up to their free will.
What? They have this thing called prevenient grace. Okay? Prevenient grace. Grace that comes before. So, Bob and Frank, and prevenient grace gets bestowed upon both of them. Bob believes. Frank does not.
Why? Because that's what happens with prevenient grace. They're in a circle. We come right back in the same circle. Why does one believe with prevenient grace and the other one does not? Because it's a free will, man.
Prevenient grace doesn't answer the question. But basically, what they're saying is the same thing as Mormonism and the same thing as Catholicism. That the inherent ability of belief resides in a person in his sin.
He's perfectly capable of simply believing on his own. All he needs is the right information. Then we get into Mormonism and compatibilism and libertarianism. My view, libertarianism is the rejection of compatibilism.
That's how I'm referring to it. Libertarianism is non-compatibilism. Another topic for another time. Next. Okay, now I'm looking on the YouTube so if I see some questions, I can do some of them. Man, look at that guy.
Boy, he's...
Which is good for them.
There's an example of total depravity. Total depravity moment of the week brought to you by Karn. I like that. Total depravity moment of the week.
Wayne Grudem has come under attack in the last few months because of his views on economic versus ontological trinity. I was wondering if you could break that down for us. I don't really necessarily care what your take is on the controversy, but could you walk us through ontological trinity versus economic trinity?
So here we have ontological and economic. So ontological comes from Gregontos meaning nature or essence. And this is oikonomia. I think it is. And we get economy. So what this is, is the nature or essence and this is relationship.
So we have an economy which is a relationship of people economically. People sell, people buy, people transport, people whatever. So the ontological trinity is that in the trinity the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all divine.
In the economic trinity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have different functions. They're different. Different functions. So the Father sent the Son, but the Son did not send the Father. The Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son.
Only the Son became incarnate. Not the Father or not the Son. So they have a difference in being sent. So He's the Eternal Son because He's in relationship with the Father because the Eternal Covenant spoken of in Hebrews 13 .20 where the inter-trinitarian communion covenant to redeem us.
And then John 6, once given to Him, the All. And this is just simply saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Are all the same in essence.
And nature. But they're different in function in relationship to each other. That's all that's going on. So I don't know what the controversy is going on with Grudem.
He pretty much agrees with everything.
His is one of the books, source books, I went to learn this stuff. There's other books. I don't go to one, I go to several. To see what the consensus is, check it with Scripture. In advanced theology like this, I'll do that.
Isn't this like an apple versus the tree controversy here? Kind of, but actually this is actually Biblical theology. This is true. This is good stuff.
It seems like one is about the nature of the Trinity. This is called the Economic.
Trinity, the Ontological Trinity. The Ontological Trinity is true. The Economic Trinity is true. It's just how we view God in different ways.
The Ontological is the essence of being.
Right. All the members of the Godhead are divine, but they have different functions. We call this Ontological, we call it Economic. That's all. In the divine essence, all attributes of the divine essence are in the person of Christ.
All of them. Because His divine nature cannot be destroyed or disrupted. So all ontological attributes by divine quality are possessed by the person of Christ. The Hypostatic Union is a teaching that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures.
You've heard me talk about this before. The Communicatio Indiumatum is that the communication of the properties of both natures in the person of Christ. Jesus is both divine and human. Divine has attributes, the human has attributes, and the one person claimed both of those sets of attributes.
I am hungry, I am thirsty. I'll be with you always, even at the end of the earth. So the communication of the properties goes to the one person. Since God is divine, and Jesus, the Word, is divine, fully God, all of the divine attributes are possessed by the Son.
Otherwise you have heresy. Now,.
Was He omnipresent on Earth? Because He's within flesh, and then when He's in His resurrected body, is He omnipresent? The firm, I don't know. Because the.
Bible doesn't say us. Say us? Say so. However, Luke right just said, all of the divine attributes have to be included with the human. But, in Philippians 2, 5 -8, have this attitude in yourselves, which also was in Christ Jesus, who although He was existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God, and He came to be robbed of grasp, but He emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and He remained the likeness of man.
He humbled Himself to the point of death, even death on a cross. That's more of a paraphrase. But He emptied Himself. The empty is what we call the kenosis. Did you read kenosis? Empty. I don't know the exact word.
So there's a heresy called the kenotic theory, that He lessened Himself. So we have God minus something, and that became the kenosis theory. But kenosis just means empty. What the true doctrine is, is the hypostatic union, where it's God plus something.
So God minus, God plus. So minus some of the attributes to become a man, plus some attributes to become what He was in the person, plus the human attributes. So the divine attributes are consistent and identical, but here the kenosis, somehow there's a lessening, but in the hypostatic union there's an addition.
The correct view is the hypostatic union, in this context. Was Jesus omnipresent? Well, if we would say that omnipresence is a necessary attribute of His divinity, then yes, we have to say He was omnipresent.
Because the attributes of divinity are ascribed to the person, and His person would then have omnipresence. Now we can see some of that attributed to Him when He says, and He knew their thoughts. Wait a minute, how does He know His thoughts, unless He's divine to some extent, are being manifested?
Well, that would be omniscience one day. Omniscience, yeah, and well, omniscience kind of implies omnipresence, because of the ubiquity of His existence in all places, to know all things. So, this gets complicated, and people just talk about this, you know, what do you do?
So I would say that yes, He had that ability, but what I'd like to say is this phrase, which I really can't define too well, but I'd like to say, He cooperated with the limitations of being a man. If someone were saying, what does that mean?
I'd say, I'm not exactly sure.
Well, if He did His miracles by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't He also be getting His, at least in the state that He was in, by the Holy Spirit? Right, through the Holy Spirit. That would be logical,.
Because He was baptized and entered into the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek to fulfill Old Testament law. He did His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is why He said in Matthew 12, 22 -32, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, saying that He was doing His miracles by the power of the evil one.
So that's the case that would make sense for that. But as we're looking at the communicatio idiomato, then the issue of His attributes still must necessitate that He has those. However, in the Philippians 2, 5 -8, this kenosis idea, the generic term, we don't know to what extent that was when He's made under the law, Galatians 4, 4, made Lord and angel, Hebrews 2, 9.
We don't know what that means. And we could actually write on a piece of paper, here's four options that that could mean. Then here's how that option might relate to this question. That option might relate to that other question.
And it gets complicated because you can ask 16, 17 interrelated questions about it. And so the thing is, I don't know. Your question is very valid, your observation is very valid, but we don't know exactly what went on, and He doesn't tell us.
So, I just say to people, I don't know. He hasn't told us. Here's a theory, here's a theory. We've got to make sure we don't go too far and become heretics, like the Mormons, Roman Catholics, some Baptists, and maybe a couple, anyway.
That's a joke. In the last segment, a listener asks, do the LDS get their understanding of baptism from Matthew 28?
No, they get it from the Mormon Church. Matthew 28 is a Trinitarian baptism formula, Matthew 28, 18 through 20, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now they baptize that way, but their understanding is not true, because they think it's baptismal regeneration and an ordinance part of the gospel that you have to go through and all this stuff.
So they get it wrong, but they use that verse among other verses.
Same person followed up with that. In Galatians 2 .14, Peter forced the Gentiles to follow Jewish customs such as ceremonial baptism, but Paul opposed Peter. Why? Because he was in Acts, or was that, no, Galatians 2.
Huh? 1048? I know who this guy is. Ask him. Is he trying to say that water baptism is no longer necessary?
No, that's Patrick from the radio show today, who I was already on.
Okay, is this the guy baptized in Jesus? Yeah. Bye-bye. I hung up on him today. Because, yeah, I hung up on him today at the office. Acts 10 .44 -48, Peter orders people to be water baptized. This guy is saying that water baptism is heresy.
Yes. He calls the law. I worked with this guy. I gave him time, and he just refuses. He says, no, Peter was in sin. Peter was wrong. Okay. You know, he's dumb. He only knows so much. I said, bye-bye.
Oh, and he said, he accused me of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. He goes, you're about to commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit because of your view.
I went, we're done. He's two users.
What? On your radio show, he goes by Patrick, and on your Bible study, he goes by baptized by Jesus.
He's two separate users. Yeah, he needs to be banned. Okay. Because he's just, I've worked with the guy. He's going to get in, and he's going to continue to do this. He has an agenda. It's not about Jesus.
It's about this doctrine thing of water baptism not being for today. But I showed him today. I said the didache. Not that the didache is scripture because it's not, but the didache was written by the people at the time of the apostles.
Some say maybe an apostle was involved with it, or people with the apostles. It was written before the year 80, a lot of people say. It was right there. And in it, it describes church practices and says water baptism was practiced.
Not that that proves it, but it's pretty good evidence. This is what was done in the early church. This is how they did it with instructions.
So... He's obsessed with being baptized by the Holy Spirit. I've heard him on the radio show many times before just going on about baptism of the Holy Spirit. Yeah, he doesn't have all his paws.
In the litter box. Alright, last one from Facebook. Bonnie Tunesman asks, what would you say to a Catholic? Sola Sculptura is a church tradition. Oh, that's not bad.
I like that. That's a good twist. Sola Sculptura is a church tradition. Yeah, I like that. That's good. That's pretty clever. Yeah. Because the Catholics say that tradition is gone. We say, no, you don't have to go with tradition, but that's not what we say.
We say we go with tradition as long as it agrees with Scripture. So if Sola Sculptura is traditional, the question is, does.
It agree with Scripture? Does Sola Sculptura.
Agree with Scripture? 1 Corinthians 4 6 says, you're not to exceed what's written. That seems to suggest Sola Sculptura. I like that, though. That's pretty clever. Sola Sculptura is a church tradition.
I kind of like that. And I can say to him, if you like church tradition, what are you complaining about?
Regarding the previous stuff on Mormonism and the priesthood, do Mormons say that the way that they have their priesthood and the ceremonies in the temple, do they say that it's the same as the Jews did then?
Even though we know, based on what the Jews say, it's completely different.
They say it's the same temple ceremony that was in the true temple. That's what they say. Just last weekend, I just argued with my cousin about this.
I said, there's no marrying happening in the Jewish temple. There's no baptizing happening in the Jewish temple.
Women are even allowed in the Jewish temple. That's ridiculous. Let alone, there's only one temple.
Now, in Matthew 27 .51, I'm going to show you guys. Let me explain something.
If you're a Mormon, you need to pay attention to this. Let me show you guys something. Alright. So, what we have is this thing called a tabernacle. In the wilderness, for example, the tabernacle in the wilderness, it had a cube roughly here.
I'm not a very good drawing drawer. I used to be an orthographic projector drawer. What we have here is a drawer. I have my tools. I've been an iota drawer. So, look down in the drawer. So, here was the entrance.
Here, looking straight down, we have the holy place and the holy of holies. I had to pass by several things to get to this place. So, what I'm talking about here, this is the veil. The high priest would walk in, go in, do his ceremony stuff, and walk around the edge and come in and right in there, in this holy of holies was the Ark of the Covenant.
The Ark of the Covenant was the container with the Ten Commandments with the jar of manna and Aaron's rod. And so, on top of this Ark of the Covenant was the mercy seat, which is where the angels came together and touched the wings.
So, this veil right here, this veil, that's what we're going to look at, he'd go in and he'd go in, I messed up my drawing, he'd go in and he would do his thing. That veil right there, this veil that separated the holy of place and the holy of holies, that veil in Matthew 27, 51, look what it says.
And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom and the earth shook and the rocks were split. Why did that happen? Because Jesus said in verse 46, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, this man is calling for Elijah. Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge. He filled it with sour wine and put it on the reed and gave him a drink.
But the rest of them said, let us see whether Elijah will come down to save him. And Jesus cried out with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit and behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two. So at the death of Christ, this veil was torn in two.
Who did it? God. God did it from top to bottom. Why? Because because in the holy of holies, this place here the ark of the covenant was here and this is the veil right here and this is the holy place okay, the holy place and this is the holy of holies the priests only go here once a year this veil symbolizes separation from God's presence to man.
He had to go through with blood to sprinkle on the top of that mercy seat. He would take blood and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and then leave. Because that mercy seat was the place of the offering of the blood sacrifice.
This is the temple. When the blood sacrifice was offered by Jesus, this is no longer necessary. So it was destroyed by God. What did the Mormons do? They put it back. They put the veil back into the.
Temple. Why? Because they still have a separation between God and them. Why? Because they're still under the law.
When you're under the law, that's the requirement. You need a priesthood. You need atonement. You need a veil. They have a veil and they say, take hands with the veil. It's a mockery and a corruption of the true issue of what happened in the tabernacle of the wilderness.
So I ask Mormons, why do you put back what God destroyed? They'll do that because they're still under the law. Federal headship is a teaching that the male represents the descendants and we who are in Christ, 1 Corinthians 15 .22, in Adam all die in Christ.
All shall be made alive. Now in Galatians 1, excuse me, Romans 7 .1 -4 it talks about those who have died are freed from the law. Now Romans 6 .8 we died with Christ. Colossians 3 .3 -4 we died with Christ.
So if we died with Christ and Romans 7 .4 says the one who died is freed from the law. We died with Christ then we're free from the law. We don't need a veil. We don't need a temple. It's done. What the Mormons are actually saying is they are still dead in their sins.
They've not died with Christ. They're still under the law. They've not been crucified with Christ. Romans 6 .6 They're still under that law. That's why they've got to do this stuff. And the Bible says cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the law to perform them.
I believe that's Galatians 3 .10 which Paul is quoting from Deuteronomy 27 .26. That's the standard of perfection. And in James 2 .10 you're obligated to keep all that law. And he who stumbles on one point is guilty of all.
And even in D &C 82 .7 Doctrine and Covenants 82 .7 If you sin again, those former sins that you've been forgiven of all return upon you. They are still under the law and the Bible says by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Romans 3 .28 So the Roman Catholic Church I mean, excuse me, see they're so similar. The Mormon Church is still under the law. They don't have a true God. They don't have a true Christ. They don't have a true gospel.
They don't have true salvation. They're still under the law which is why they are under the bondage of the Old Testament covenant system with their priesthood, with their authority, and even though they don't have a blood sacrifice going on in the atonement in the temple, which is what it was for.
They still have the veil put back that God got rid of. And what do they appeal to for the truth of all of this? But I have a testimony and you know what? I feel it. And God knows my heart. He knows my sincerity.
He knows how good I am. I asked with honesty and integrity and James 1 .5 says and if you lack wisdom, then a mask of God. I was sincere so God gave it to me. That's why I know that I'm okay because of how good I am to begin with because I was sincere.
That's the foolishness of Mormonism.
And they believe they're the Pharisees and the rest of us are the Gentiles and they agree with the Pharisees in that they don't believe Jesus is the I Am.
I'm going to unpack that one. They believe he is and is not a Samaritan. I know what you mean. But I'm trying to reach out to the Mormons. I want them to understand. You're back under the law. Mormons need to read Romans 3, 4, and 5 and know the Bible has not been corrupted.
That's just the work of the devil trying to get you to not believe the Word of God. So you believe that liar Joseph Smith who said he saw God the Father. When the Bible says no man can see God the Father.
1 Timothy 6, 16. John 6, 46. You can't see God the Father. Oh, but he did. He's such a liar. And he boasted in all his affidavits and all his affidavits is all the devil, all corruption, all hell boil over.
You're burning the mountains. Roll down in lava for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast than ever any man had. I've done more to keep a church together since the days of Adam. Neither John, Paul, Peter, nor Jesus has ever done such a work as I.
You know, just give me a break. Gosh. How can people believe this stuff? There's only one high priest at a time. But in Acts, no. John, there were two high priests. One political, one ceremonial. See ya!
And that wasn't supposed to be the case. But it did historically get to be a place of two high priests at the same time. One high priest because of the one high priest in the days of Christ.
Who decided who was the high priest?
I don't know who the high priest was. That's a good question. I do not know that one. They had some way of deciding. But I mean, I don't know. Who'd want to be like, yeah, I'll go. Sign me up. I'll do the high priest thing.
I mean, I'm like, uh... They didn't die. Yeah, you know. I don't know. But it had come out of the priesthood family and stuff like that. I mean, hey man, who'd be the high priest? Well, what about Bob over here?
You know? You'd better look him. I fear God. I love him. I trust him. But I don't want to mess with him. Okay. Anything else? Let me see. One last.
What the double deuce does the Mormon church mean when they say.
Reform God? That's a good question. What do they mean by that? It's a reformed or restored gospel? What they mean is, we got it from the devil and we are telling you his lies so that we can help you go to hell with us.
That's what the reformed gospel really is. What they want to say that it is is basically the laws and the ordinances of the Mormon church. Basically. So the Mormon church itself. Right. So we've got to be careful.
I'll teach you a little something. Something called, let's say we have X and we have Y. Alright? So there's a principle. So if all of the attributes of X are identical to all of the attributes of Y then X is Y.
Right? So if we were to say for example if we were to say this I forgot your thing but I'll just shift into what I've been studying. Annihilationism says eternal punishment is equal to non-existence.
Because our non-existence goes on forever. So what they're saying is they're equal. They're saying the attributes of both are identical. But are they? The answer is no. They can't be equal. They say that and it's something I'm working on.
I have an article I'll release soon. The Philosophical Objections to Conditionalism.
Put the rhyme through the equal sign because if you're not existent you cannot experience punishment.
Right. You're non-existent. And so that's part of the issue because here we have nothing. And here they're saying eternal punishment is also nothing. It's not it. Punishment is an action. Right? Right.
This is an action and this is not an action. So what they'll do is they'll say that it's the redefined as a result. Anyway, it was reminding me of something of what you said. They were equating something with something.
And so this is part of the issue. But when you think in terms like this, it helps you. Wait a minute. It can't be identical. And so when you give an analogy what they'll do is they'll say for example, they will say that capital punishment is analogous to God's eternal punishment.
Why? Because when someone is executed their condition of non-life exists forever. It continues. The effect continues. So capital punishment is non-existence. Deprivation of life. Just as God's eternal punishment is also non-existence of life.
So they relate them. But there's problems. There's problems with those. Because.
There's problems. If you don't exist... I got some other issues too I can show. Logical problems. If you no longer exist then you don't go to hell. You don't go to heaven.
You do nothing. You evaporate. There's nothingness. And they say that they call that eternal punishment.
The condition of non-existence. But here I'll show you something. Watch this. I'll do it now. How can you be gnashing your teeth for eternity if you don't exist?
It's only for an aeon. But let me show you something. They'll say here's condition this is my thing. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. Condition 4. And condition 5. Now. So. This is non-existence.
Now this is when you're born. So you exist. Because you're born. Alright? You with me? Then you die. And now there's something they call soul sleep. Which I don't know what they mean by it. When they say soul sleep they don't define it.
Well it's kind of like when you're asleep. I've got 15 questions I want to ask in specificity to really understand this. But I can't find out what they mean. So then you're resurrected. And you exist.
Then you're judged. And then non-existence. Okay? This is the annihilation position. This is how it works. Now condition of non-existence doesn't exist because you can't have a condition of something that doesn't exist.
We're going to play with words. So non-existence. Then you're born. You're a bad guy. You're wicked. So you die. You go to soul sleep. They use soul sleep to avoid the philosophical problem of continuity.
Then you're resurrected and judged and your eternal punishment is non-existence. Okay? That's what they say. Now here's a question. Is this exactly identical to this? Yes. If it is, arguably. Sorry. So this is identical to this, right?
Identical. Identical, right? Yes. So if this Now they say this, though, is eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is non-existence. If this is identical to this, then this also must be eternal punishment.
Right? Because it's identical. It's exactly identical. But they're going to say, no. This is the result of condition four. And the result of condition four, their judgment, is why they don't exist. That's what that is, Matt.
I'll say, let's go over this again. Is this non-existence? Yes. Is this non-existence? Yes. Then if non-existence here is punishment, why is non-existence here not punishment? Since they're exactly identical.
It's a philosophical problem with their view. Not to mention linguistic ones, some other ones. I've been covering a lot of stuff in my very deep research on annihilationism. I am absolutely convinced they are wrong.
How do you not exist and then exist and not exist again? Well, they say souls do. No, I mean, if you don't exist for eternity and then you become born, well then how did you become born if you didn't exist in the being?
He made you. Okay. So he made you. No. So we got taken from non-existence.
Non-existence. This is when you begin. So you begin here. Okay. But then you end here. Right here. So this is your duration. So you have existence, soft sleep, and then non-existence. But this is the result of this.
So this is effective punishment upon you. But how can it be? It's exactly identical to this. But if they're exactly identical, they're the same thing. But it doesn't work in annihilationism. There's something wrong.
Their view is wrong. You see what I'm saying? It's not logical. Their position is philosophically untenable. I want to hear what they're going to say about this when I release my stuff. Well, Matt, you don't understand.
Okay. I don't see how they can get out of this one. And there's something else. What's the point of the soul sleeping? Okay. The point of soul sleep is this. Let's try a different color. All right. So you exist.
Then you die. And you, let's just say, don't exist. We'll go with this version first. Don't exist. Then you exist again. Okay? Now, is this person here the same person here? Because if you don't exist, the continuity is broken.
This is a serious philosophical issue. If your continuity is broken, how do you defend that you're the same person? There are some interesting issues here. But, that's why they have to say soul sleep.
Because they recognize this problem among other things. And so they'll say soul sleep fixes that. They're continuous. They're just unconscious. But some annihilationists will say that their continuity in their unconsciousness is equivalent to death.
Of soul sleep. What does that mean? What is soul sleep? I ask a lot more detailed questions than they provide in their books. I go through their books. I read. I read. What about this? What about that?
They don't give me any answers. A lot of things. And I'm serious. I was reading some of it today. I'm going to have over 50 articles ready, believe it or not, to release. I was reading today through some of their material, and they were insulting.
Their condescending attitude about how cultural traditionalists view these things about certain things. Because they don't understand. Really condescending. They remind me of universalists. Not as bad.
But they remind me of universalists. It's the ideology that's important. Not the person of Christ. Now, let's say you're all like that. You know, several of them I've met are not. What are they avoiding?
Well, they're just... Well, part of the problem is... We've been on this topic for a while. Part of the problem is they don't like the idea of God eternally tormenting somebody because they think that's immoral.
Well, I'm going to write an article refuting that. It's just your opinion. It's your subjective opinion. It's immoral. How do you know? He wouldn't do that. How do you know? Because it's wrong. How do you know?
Because I say so. How do you know? Because it's my opinion. Because they don't think they're that bad. People don't think they're that bad, but in the presence of God they'll figure out that that's the case.
So, in other words, what they're trying to avoid is their accountability to God.
Well, no, they do believe in accountability. And they say that the result of your sin is eternal non-existence. And that's a terrifying prospect. Really? Which is a more terrifying prospect? Conscious torment or nothing?
Well, they've admitted it because they don't like the conscious torment. And they mock. I have more respect for an annihilationist who says, look, forget these arguments about it makes God immoral or a big bully.
That emotionally based subjectivism has no place in this discussion. I won't be writing articles to attack those things. I want them to say linguistically speaking and the way the words are used, this is what we find.
That's what I'm interested in.
What about, and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day or night these worshippers of the beast and its image.
That's Revelation 20 .10? Or 14 .11?
Revelation 14 .10. Or 11. Sorry, 11.
I'm not exactly sure how they're going to respond to that because I haven't gotten to that particular verse with Revelation 20 .10. I'm saving those. That with Isaiah 66 .24 that Jesus quotes in Mark 9 .48 I believe.
And so I've kind of been saving these for later because I've done a great deal of research on words. I've got probably 40 articles, maybe 35 articles just researching.
Greek words. Like the word torment? Because torment has to be experienced?
No. What I did was, for example, punishment. Or destroy. I went in and found at least, I think it was 20 words translated into the English destroy. 20 different words. So I did 20 different studies. I think it was 22 or 23.
Just on that range where I took every single verse in the New Testament where the Greek word occurs and ate it as cognates. Put it into a three column table. So I have the address like John 3 .16. Okay?
I have the verse with the scripture written out. Then I have the meaning. Now this is where I get a little bit subjective because I have to read the verse. What is the word meaning? And I admit that. But at least I'm going through and looking at every single instance.
And so... Now that guy is a heretic. That guy is bad news. He's actually the pastor of this church. Word's out, man. Word's out. Yeah, you can't trust him. Anybody with a goatee like that.
So... So what I've done is I've done. I've done studies on words. For example, let me tell you about this.
Matthew 10 .28 This is one of our famous verses. Don't fear man, but fear God who can destroy both soul, body and soul in Him. They'll say, see? The word destroy, I believe this is the right word, apollumi.
And it means here, in this context, it means non-existence. I'm going to ask them, how do you know that? It's called begging the questions. Another philosophical objection I've got against them. They beg the question.
It means non-existence. Nice talking to you, man. That is so true. And so the word apollumi apollumi occurs well over a hundred times, going through every single verse, and I found the meanings and stuff like that.
And sometimes it means to destroy but the thing destroyed is still there. You can't do what's called illegitimate totality transfer, where you take the meaning of what's called a semantic domain. It has a wide variety of meanings.
You take the meaning of this context and transfer it over to this context. You don't want to do that. Words mean what they mean in context. But at least you can see that it has a semantic domain, a range of meaning.
Just like the word agape is used of the Pharisees loving, agape, their high seats. It's not divine love. So the semantic domain is one of ungodliness and ungodly.
Love. So people don't.
Know that, but anyway, that's Luke 11 .43 for those people who are going, what? So I've discovered that not only apollumi, but a whole bunch of.
Other words are used for the word.
Destruction, and they have different meanings and different things. Why is it that are they saying that it means non-existence? Why is it saying that? Because they say destruction means non-existence.
But why is it that the same word is used for things that are destroyed that still exist? And in Luke 20 .36 Jesus said that about marriage he said that people in the resurrection are like angels. They do not die.
That means angels don't die, right? Not even able to die. That's what he said. Not even able to. They cannot even. It's ude dunatai. No way cannot, and it only occurs right there. Ude dunatai. Doesn't even occur anywhere else in the New Testament.
I found this out today doing research. Ude dunatai. No way. Cannot happen. Angels don't even they do not die. That means they live forever. Oh, I could show you guys something. But it's late. I don't want to keep you.
But if you want, I could show you some stuff I've been finding out about through my studies. There's some really interesting stuff about the verses that they just say. It means this and it means that.
I'm looking at the Wait a minute. One minute, one minute two.
I can turn the camera off so they don't have a... So something like the type of created beings that humans and angels are, that because of how they're created and God made them, they can't die in the first place.
It's just where is he going to put them?
Exactly. Well, I haven't seen what they're going to say about Luke 20 36 because they're going to have to say to be consistent with their theology. They're going to have to say that angels can die. What they mean then they're going to have to say is spiritual death, non-existence.
They're going to have to say that because their view is that only the redeemed people are the ones given immortality or the ability not to die. Wait a minute. The angels are said not to die. That means the view that only the redeemed have it is false.
Real simple. And when you take the word immortality and look at the context of 1 Timothy 6 16, oh boy. I found all kinds of stuff. There's so much information I've got, I have trouble keeping it all together to put things together.
I'm finding now that I'm having to construct articles, not just write them. Construct them with segments of information and then read through it and go back and read through it to make it smooth for people to understand the research.
That I've done. I will.
I can tell you. Because I've got some stuff I don't want released yet.
That's done. That's done? You want me to show you some more stuff? Keep your charts close to your chest.
Yeah, I'm keeping them close because one of the main proponents of this is coming to my house in three weeks. Yeah. And then I'm going to release these probably in two to three weeks. Maybe four. Depends on how many articles I get done in fast.
And then it's going to hit the fan. Is he going to debate you in your house?
No, it's Chris Day. He's a real nice guy. We're just going to talk and disagree. He's a Calvinist. Is he the one Len Pettis debated? Oh, I don't know. So, you know, I'm going to sit with him and say, hey, what about this?
What about that? Get some information. Because he's a good guy. He's not a jerk. I told him, hey, if you want to stay at the house, stay at the house. His wife's got relatives in the same city I live in.
So the guy that's not a jerk is going to go to the jerk's house? Yeah, that's true. That is so true. Okay, I'm going to quit this and I'll show you something I found. We have a couple questions. We have a guy who's struggling.
With submission. He's a believer, but he's just struggling. Submission? Headlock.
Connection. What was the question? He's just struggling with submission to Jesus. Submission to Jesus? He's struggling? Welcome to the club. Who isn't struggling? I'm struggling all the time. I should pray more.
I should be more humble. That's kind of hard to do. But I should be even more humble than I am. I mean, how do you submit to Jesus and everything? It's tough. The fact that he is struggling with that is a demonstration of the work of God in him and the issue of sanctification.
To move him to be more like Christ and he's seeing he has more and more trouble obeying Christ. Welcome to the club is never going to end. Just because you're concerned about it is a very good sign. So, keep trying to submit and keep going to the cross when you fail.
Because it's at the cross that God is glorified. Not in your failure of submission, but in your approach to the cross where yet again you lay your issues and your sins before him and he has already cleansed you.
And so you're continually relying on the cross. That glorifies God. When you fail, go to the cross. That's what you've got to learn. They're booing you. They want you to release the information now. Come to class.
Come to class. Tell them to come to class. No, my thing on 1 Timothy 6 .16 which I'll show you guys after this, off the air. You can tell them what you think of it. Because I think it blows a big hole in their view.
See what you get for coming to class. Insider information. But I'm going to be really... I've already got the article on this finished. I haven't put it on CARM yet. It's all... I'm going to sit one day, release all the articles.
It'll probably take me an hour to release all the articles. And then... What's that? Does your computer make that sound? Yeah. It's like a clock. A spiritual clock. That was not a 43 either. Alright. Another question?
No, we're done? Alright, we're done then. We're done?
